wait, you mean you actually expected them to address the real underlying issue?

mental health reform does nothing to further their agenda.

MErl

December 19, 2012, 12:21 PM

details on how it would be implemented or is this what will be sent to congress with the new term?

HOOfan_1

December 19, 2012, 12:22 PM

details on how it would be implemented or is this what will be sent to congress with the new term?

How else could it be done. If Obama could someone do it himself, he is only proving he is a tyrant.

horsemen61

December 19, 2012, 12:22 PM

What now ?

Aikibiker

December 19, 2012, 12:23 PM

details on how it would be implemented or is this what will be sent to congress with the new term?

It is his wishlist. The what and the how have yet to be determined with the SCOTUS and the Heller decision being the wildcard.

redneck2

December 19, 2012, 12:24 PM

I really thought he'd sign an executive order to implement all these things. Who's gonna fight it? Very few in congress are gonna openly be pro gun right now

otasan56

December 19, 2012, 12:25 PM

With any luck, the GOP-controlled HR will block all of this BS.

Houser52

December 19, 2012, 12:26 PM

Sounds like the VP is heading up a team that will recommend something ASAP without lengthy studies and reports. In other words they will ram some feel good legislation through that will make us all "feel" safer.

bnolsen

December 19, 2012, 12:26 PM

So can we just slightly tweak the Declaration of Independence and issue it once again yet????

Batty67

December 19, 2012, 12:30 PM

Two ways to look at it from an anti 2nd amendment perspective:

(1) *Something* has to be done, so let's more-or-less reinstitute the AWB (ignorant approach)

(2) Here is our chance to not only get some kind of federal anti-gun legislation passed, but we can get far more than we ever dreamed of... (deliberate approach).

Of course, the media fans the flames and basks in the glow, that is what they do, and of course, they are generally left to begin with.

Either way, I think this IS coming and SCOTUS might be able to curb some of it..after a long delay. I hope I'm wrong, but I think I'm right. Time will tell of course.

mljdeckard

December 19, 2012, 12:32 PM

I am REALLY trying to bite off smug comments to those who kept saying that Obama doesn't want to ban guns.

Putting Biden in charge might actually be good for our side.

Don't panic yet. He has always WANTED to do this. Feinstein has introduced this bill MANY times. Just because they want to, and handful of members have flipped, doesn't mean they are anywhere near the votes they would need to do it. The fervor will never be higher than it is RIGHT NOW. They are mostly glad to have something other than the budget to talk about.

armoredman

December 19, 2012, 12:35 PM

From the CNN story comes this little tidbit,
Bill Mingin's gun lay under the floorboards of his attic for 40 years, he said in an iReport.
"I thought I needed it 'just in case,'" the New Jersey man said.
But after the Newtown massacre, he thought of selling it -- but didn't want it ending up in "the hands of a bad person."
"So I smashed it with a sledge hammer, and threw it in the river. No one will ever be hurt with this deadly toy. Let's get rid of the guns. Let it start with mine."

You destroy YOUR own property all you want - keep your hands off of mine.

I really thought he'd sign an executive order to implement all these things. Who's gonna fight it? Very few in congress are gonna openly be pro gun right now
I think that's still the agenda. He just wants the appearance that he attempted to do it through the proper proceedures before he blames the Republicans in the House for obstructing "progress". That way he can claim he is justified in using an Executive Order to hobble the 2nd AM.

mljdeckard

December 19, 2012, 12:43 PM

The statement that 'very few in congress are gonna be openly pro-gun right now' is not true at all. Very few lawmakers have said anything at all or changed their positions. I know exectly where all six of Utah's representatives stand.

Obama and top administration officials suggest the response to the Newtown, Conn., mass murder could include a range of recommendations. But the focus, given the debate that has accelerated on Capitol Hill in recent days, is likely to be gun control.

The president said Wednesday that he chose Biden to lead the task force in part because of his role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban. Obama spoke favorably of the ban, as well as proposals to strengthen background checks and ban high-capacity magazines. The president tried to walk a line between assuring Americans that gun rights would largely be protected, while making the case for some new restrictions.

"The fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible," he said. "But you know what -- I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say we should keep the irresponsible law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war."

Obama said he would use "all the powers" of his office to prevent more tragedies. "We won't prevent them all, but that can't be an excuse not to try," he said.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the administration will craft proposals for Congress to consider over the next few weeks. He said a "strong" Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also important.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama is "actively supportive" of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's, D-Calif., push to bring back an assault-weapons ban. He also said the president supports closing the so-called gun show loophole.

Lawmakers have floated a number of other proposals, including regulation of high-capacity clips, that the administration could also look at.

Anti-Gun mainstream media + Anti-gun president - the second amendment = police state run by a dictator

HOOfan_1

December 19, 2012, 12:47 PM

So how do these executive orders work? He says something is illegal and sends the storm troopers door to door taking your stuff. What a brilliant way to incite some nasty reprisals

CharlieDeltaJuliet

December 19, 2012, 12:47 PM

Unless something changes, an EO cannot be done to simply ban guns. Executive Orders do not work like that. My question is how can the EO change already written laws... This is where all gun owners need to stand together, no matter race,creed religion, or political affiliation. I just ope we are strong enough.

481

December 19, 2012, 12:48 PM

With any luck, the GOP-controlled HR will block all of this BS.
Not that I have much faith in them anymore, but that would seem to be our only hope at this time.

What a dreary outlook.

Romeo 33 Delta

December 19, 2012, 12:49 PM

Just curious, but explain exactly how banning private sales of any legal product or service is Constitutional?

oldcodger

December 19, 2012, 12:52 PM

that's TYRANNY.

beatledog7

December 19, 2012, 12:55 PM

Tyranny is the plan. Always has been.

Sky

December 19, 2012, 12:57 PM

Bork just passed away so now there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.

Silent Bob

December 19, 2012, 12:58 PM

So much for looking at a "broad range" of ideas to prevent gun violence. The only thing on Obama's agenda is gun control, as we have always known of him. No mention of mental health, etc. Just finally his grand opportunity.

mljdeckard

December 19, 2012, 12:59 PM

Executive orders are used to administrate guidelines for offices that fall under the executive branch. He can't just wave a wand and make any law he wants to by EO. He can do things like, re-write BATFE importation guidelines, say what is and isn't for 'sporting use', and re-write DOJ prosecution guidelines.

Aikibiker

December 19, 2012, 12:59 PM

Bork just passed away so now there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.

Bork was never a supreme court justice.

CharlieDeltaJuliet

December 19, 2012, 01:00 PM

Romeo 33 Delta, the answer is simple. They make them illegal. It has happened too often in this nation. It is actually sad.... I wouldn't be surprised now if the government implemented a cease on production. Many years ago, this nation would not stand for it, but now, I am unsure.

Everyone says "it cannot happen here" I am sure that was said in England, Austrailia, and Canada. I am sickened...

Sky

December 19, 2012, 01:01 PM

Bork was never a supreme court justice.

So sorry you are correct

bikemutt

December 19, 2012, 01:05 PM

Bork just passed away so now there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.
Say what?

Pismopal

December 19, 2012, 01:07 PM

Gun ownership is not my only concern and it should not be anyone's only concern. This guy..with the help of unions and entitlement kings and queens is going to screw this country up beyond repair. Some people cannot think past their stomachs or union cards.

slidemuzik

December 19, 2012, 01:20 PM

Unless something changes, an EO cannot be done to simply ban guns. Executive Orders do not work like that. My question is how can the EO change already written laws... This is where all gun owners need to stand together, no matter race,creed religion, or political affiliation. I just ope we are strong enough.
I think the EO could be used to order the proper agency(BATF?) to change the " dangerous devices" provision of the Gun act of '34 (that is already law) to include what they want banned. It limits the influence of the NRA to apply pressure on legislators. No new legislation for the House and Senate to vote on, so no accountability issues there. It shifts the battle to the court system.

They had a trial of this strategy when Obama first took office. They proposed redefining a switchblade to include any knife that could be opened with one hand.

While that was unsuccessful, I have always thought that was only a dress rehearsal to hone the stategy before using it for other objectives. Why else would they move to restrict knifes that can be opened with one hand? Was there an outcry against knives that I was unaware of?

Click here for a search of Obama Knife Ban for the details. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENP_enUS505US505&q=obams+knife+ban#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Bpchatac&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=serp&gs_mss=obam%20knife%20ban&pq=obams%20knife%20ban&cp=5&gs_id=6&xhr=t&q=obama+knife+ban&pf=p&tbo=d&rlz=1T4LENP_enUS505US505&sclient=psy-ab&oq=obama+knife+ban&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ&fp=c341db92e3d4d65d&bpcl=40096503&biw=1097&bih=518

razorback2003

December 19, 2012, 01:20 PM

I doubt the House will let such a law through. I doubt it will even reach a floor vote.

Biden is tasking this. The guy is not that good at working with anyone but a few like him.

mboylan

December 19, 2012, 01:22 PM

I really thought he'd sign an executive order to implement all these things. Who's gonna fight it? Very few in congress are gonna openly be pro gun right now
He can't. An EO would probably cover something like stricter background checks and requiring feeds from more databases.

Please please learn more about our system of government if you are going to be politically active.

NavyLCDR

December 19, 2012, 01:22 PM

Sounds like the VP is heading up a team that will recommend something ASAP without lengthy studies and reports. In other words they will ram some feel good legislation through that will make us all "feel" safer.

I believe you probably meant to say that will make all of them feel safer?

I think there are very few members of this forum who will feel the slightest bit safer with whatever the government comes up with.

HOOfan_1

December 19, 2012, 01:23 PM

I think the EO could be used to order the proper agency(BATF?) to change the " dangerous devices" provision of the Gun act of '34 (that is already law) to include what they want banned.They had a trial of this strategy when Obama first took office. They proposed redefining a switchblade to include any knife that could be opened with one hand.

would that not require rewording the law?

cskny

December 19, 2012, 01:24 PM

private sales allow the bypass of background checks. So even if someone has been flagged as mentally ill, they can simply purchase illegally through a private sale by keeping their mouths shut or not being honest. Felons can essentially do the same thing.

Many of us gun owners have pointed out this problem, even in prior discussions here, hoping the pro gun community would recognize this ridiculous gap in current law/process, and help create a solid solution to prevent that clearly preventable (and likely) senario.

Is there really surprise that legislators will now try and make these type of solution decisions for us? I am sometimes surprised simply by THR "shock".

mljdeckard

December 19, 2012, 01:27 PM

Keep in mind, another roadblock they would have to work around are the words; "In common use". In Scalia's majority opinion for Heller, he stated that citizens have a right to arms in common use. ARs certainly fit that description.

mboylan

December 19, 2012, 01:28 PM

I think the EO could be used to order the proper agency(BATF?) to change the " dangerous devices" provision of the Gun act of '34 (that is already law) to include what they want banned. It limits the influence of the NRA to apply pressure on legislators. No new legislation for the House and Senate to vote on, so no accountability issues there. It shifts the battle to the court system.

They had a trial of this strategy when Obama first took office. They proposed redefining a switchblade to include any knife that could be opened with one hand.

While that was unsuccessful, I have always thought that was only a dress rehearsal to hone the stategy before using it for other objectives. Why else would they move to restrict knifes that can be opened with one hand? Was there an outcry against knives that I was unaware of?
Nope. Title II arms are very strictly defined by law.

Some shotguns got reclassified because the bore is over. 50. Unfortunately, 32 guage shotguns and up have bore diameters above .50 and some can fall under non-sporting purposes.

michaelbsc

December 19, 2012, 01:28 PM

So, last night I was getting lambasted because I kept saying that we needed to have a plan to move the conversation to talk about the mental health issue, which frankly would be good for the country and the medical community.

The whole world says, "this is a mental health issue, not a gun control issue, but we want gun control." And today the prez gets on national TV and says, "we're gonna cram gun control down your throat." (effectively) And not much about mental health. To be honest there was comment, but it was so fleeting I can't even remember what he said.

Does everyone still think I was crazy last night. Still think I'm a troll?

HOOfan_1

December 19, 2012, 01:30 PM

private sales allow the bypass of background checks.

Have any of the shootings that has sprakred Obama's lastes madness been done with guns bought through private sales?

Cosmoline

December 19, 2012, 01:31 PM

Don't just spout off what you think you heard. The details are absolutely critical to this debate, lest we end up attacking a proposal that isn't even being made. The news reports I've seen have had Obama's spokesman (not him--that's important here) he "strongly" backs the AWB revival which he's always done. Indeed every President for twenty years has said they'd sign that law. What's the difference between backing and "strongly" backing? I'm not sure. Since Obama knows it will not pass, he may simply be setting it up to fail. So he can say he tried without endangering his majority in the midterms by actually passing gun control laws.

President Obama supports an effort already afoot in the U.S. Senate to renew the expired ban on assault weapons, his spokesman said Tuesday.

Obama also plans to back a law to tighten the regulations governing the sale of firearms at gun shows, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in his afternoon briefing.

The talking point in 2014 and for his successor in 2016 will be "The NRA has been blocking common-sense gun control." That's a winner for them. Actually having to get reelected after substantive gun control? Well they've been there and they don't want to go back. It would cost them critical swing states in the next Presidential election and lose house and maybe some Senate (WV anyone?) seats in the mid terms.

It's a game. Watch what they do, not what they say. The NRA's best move, though it would raise a lot of ire from us, would be to call their bluff and, for example, agree to a ban on private sales AT GUN SHOWS. Literally at gun shows. Nowhere else. So we'll have to go to the parking lot. I can walk, and who goes to a gun show anymore? They're glorified flea markets in most states due to the internet. So the rhetorical "loophole" is closed and they can't claim we were unwilling to compromise. That offer, plus some tightened oversight of the dangerously insane, would be a good counterpunch.

Remember none of this is about actually passing laws. It's about posturing for the next election.

Shuler13

December 19, 2012, 01:32 PM

I suspect this will be the genesis for a lot of laws that won't pass but a few minor ones that will pass so he can O can say he did something. I'm thinking sporting rifles will still be legal but registration and private sales tracking will come to fruition. Maybe even a new tax.

Kevin Rohrer

December 19, 2012, 01:32 PM

Obummer is blowing sociatist smoke. Don't let it go up your rear end.

Bobson

December 19, 2012, 01:34 PM

But nothing about mental health?

I wish they would dig their heads out of the sand and stop blaming the tool for the users actions.
The only thing he said about mental health during this conference was, "We need to make access to mental health care at least as accessible as guns."

Which is great, but yeah... that sure wasn't the foundation of his little speech.

breakingcontact

December 19, 2012, 01:36 PM

This thread has my head spinning.

Thanks to those of you who try to keep it grounded in law and reason.

It wasn't the speech many of us feared. He did mention better mental healthcare access I believe...so that's good. Aside from that...not anything new really. He's wanted this for years. Now they're going to try and get it through Congress.

I'm for improved access to mental healthcare (quality...not just wrecking minds w drugs). I am also for improved school security. Didn't see that mentioned.

As far as gun laws...nothing wild or unexpected here. Is it an incremental approach to destroying the 2nd amendment? Perhaps. But lets confront what was laid out and not go off the deep end. Just serves to marginalize and frustrate our side.

Now go buy magazines.

Sam1911

December 19, 2012, 01:36 PM

Well, this is EXACTLY what was expected -- and I see it as a net positive thing.

They're proposing pretty much EXACTLY what they did 18 years ago in 1994. It was such a well-known flop -- didn't even stop Columbine -- that the whole law was allowed to "sunset" (die) at the 10 year mark.

Oh, plus the gun show/private sale thing which no one could even pretend had any relevance at all to the recent tragedy -- so that's basically a non sequitur.

So that makes our job a whole lot easier. Nothing really new to do or say -- just "That old thing, again? Why? It didn't work before and we ditched it."

Really, it seems like between this ho-hum announcement and the selection of Biden to head it, they're clearly going for the "make some noise, look concerned, let it die" route.

breakingcontact

December 19, 2012, 01:39 PM

Regarding private sales. I will sell to people I know or ask to see a concealed weapons permit. I do my part to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm sure they may tick off some people here. But I never want to buy a hot gun and I don't ever want to sell one to a felon either. Not saying the law should change but its something I do to avoid the whole mess. Which would in turn result in less laws if we were more diligent.

parrothead2581

December 19, 2012, 01:41 PM

I've been meaning to buy some more Glock mags at my local shop.

They're probably gone now!

HOOfan_1

December 19, 2012, 01:45 PM

Really, it seems like between this ho-hum announcement and the selection of Biden to head it, they're clearly going for the "make some noise, look concerned, let it die" route.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst

Cosmoline

December 19, 2012, 01:47 PM

Put bluntly, they want to parade around in the future elections with murdered children. That gets people emotional and gets them votes. If actual gun control is passed, then the whole focus shifts to whether it's working (we know it won't) and they can't get traction from the dead kids anymore. Haven't you noticed the almost GLEEFUL tone in the voices of the anti-gun advocates and the MSM lately? That all ends once we're talking about flash suppressors instead of murdered kids. In fact most of them will get openly hostile if you start actually discussing the actual laws they're proposing.

Mark my words, if the GOP calls their bluff and agrees to some podunk measure they'll be scrambling to get out of it.

xXxplosive

December 19, 2012, 01:56 PM

IMO............he's enacting Illinois gun laws all over again.

Sky

December 19, 2012, 01:59 PM

How many here voted for BHO?

Yep and how many said it can't/won't happen? Many are still quite satisfied he was re-elected....It was the will of the people if you believe the votes were counted and the results were correct. Winners and losers etc etc. spilled milk deal the hand we are delt.

So as others have said it might be advisable for those who care to email or write their elected reps and let them know how you feel in a respectful way.

It hasn't happened yet and hopefully thoughtful voices of reason will prevail. I am happy the house may/should block any inane new bills.

beeb173

December 19, 2012, 02:06 PM

the problem you're gonna find is the GOP is putting voters priorities at odds. they've been so anti-labor as of late it's an easy decision to choose between a pistol grip and your pension and health care.

don't kill the messanger but if it's between my benefits and magazines (that i already have) guess what...

if the GOP put out their own proposals, ones that address the mental health and law enforcement aspects of gun violence they'll show the country they aren't reactionary like the president is being right now.

Bovice

December 19, 2012, 02:11 PM

"It's ok to be a liberal and a 2a supporter, so I voted for Obama."

For those of you who said that, think long and hard about what you've contributed to. Personally I don't see this gun control thing as a bluff. We've really bit off a hard piece to chew. Instead of having a leader to make rational and educated solutions, this is what we get. It's so far out of control that I think we have really done ourselves in.

HOWARD J

December 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

They will go for a ban on all-semi auto rifles
All mag over 10 rounds for hand guns
This country was finished when Obama was re-elected
When he gets done we will look like Detriot
It's your new America----get used to it
You can tell---I really love the guy

slidemuzik

December 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

Nope. Title II arms are very strictly defined by law.

Some shotguns got reclassified because the bore is over. 50. Unfortunately, 32 guage shotguns and up have bore diameters above .50 and some can fall under non-sporting purposes.
I yield to the legal beagles for what ultimately can or can't be done. I hope you're right and they can't redefine the "dangerous devices" section to include the things they want banned.

How is that any different from the attempt to redefine the definition of a switchblade knife?
What ultimately prevented it from happening is legislation included in another bill that solidified that definition of a switchblade... ironically allowing Obama to say that he signed into law provisions that protected knife rights. You have to acknowledge the malevolent genius of this guy.

Frank Ettin

December 19, 2012, 02:39 PM

I think the EO could be used to order the proper agency(BATF?) to change the " dangerous devices" provision of the Gun act of '34 (that is already law) to include what they want banned...No. Something like that can not be done by Executive Order.

A President can't "just do it through an Executive Order." An Executive Order must be pursuant to an underlying statute or regulation and be consistent with the underlying statute or regulation, and an Executive Order must be constitutional. Executive Orders are subject to challenge in court.

An Executive Order is not law.

An Executive Order is a statement of policy and instruction from the President, as the senior manager of the Executive Branch, to the organizational units that report to him. The scope, extent and application of an Executive Order is limited by the the underlying statute to which it refers. The Executive Order can not change the statute.

Frank Ettin

December 19, 2012, 02:52 PM

Let's reflect on the probability that the sorts of things here being proposed have a lot of public support -- support from our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., upon whom the politicians depend to be elected and re-elected. When enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, are afraid, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So let's remember that in this struggle part of our challenge is to present gun owners and gun ownership in a positive light to our neighbors, the people in our communities,the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

mljdeckard

December 19, 2012, 02:57 PM

I agree. I'm offering free carry permit classes to everyone I know.

Jorg Nysgerrig

December 19, 2012, 03:03 PM

Frank nailed it. It wouldn't matter who was President at this point. The public outcry and reaction to this event is unprecedented. This goes far beyond any politicians and their machinations. The events of the next few weeks and months will determine whether it stays that way.

michaelbsc

December 19, 2012, 03:06 PM

I yield to the legal beagles for what ultimately can or can't be done. I hope you're right and they can't redefine the "dangerous devices" section to include the things they want banned.

If they're actually rewriting the law, and they can actually get it passed, they can rewrite it to include broken beer bottles.

There is the logistics of actually getting it out of committee, and then actually getting it passed. Broken beer bottles is a guaranteed failure. How aggressive they can be is up in the air. Obviously their strategy is going to be go for broke, then back down until you get something that will pass.

Or, maybe as some have suggested, go for broke and blame the Republicans when it fails, but take the credit for trying.

Frank Ettin

December 19, 2012, 03:13 PM

...The public outcry and reaction to this event is unprecedented. This goes far beyond any politicians and their machinations...Let's also remember that we got saddled with the Gun Control Act of 1968 in large part because a few years prior three wildly popular public figures where assassinated by criminals with guns.

ReloaderEd

December 19, 2012, 03:14 PM

I think Obama intends to change the 2nd Ammendment any which way he and Buffet and Bloomburg can.
So what is the real Agenda? Well lets look at what is happening and what can happen.
Our Government is printing and spending money it doesn't have makeing them in a sense thieves with a license to steal.
We are facing a financial cliff once again.
There is no way the National Debt can be paid off without a new currency and total destruction of the U.S. Dollar.
The big bail out was opposed by the majority of our citizens but it was passed anyway.
For most practical matters we are already a Socialist Country.
And in the last week, people are buying guns, clips, reloading gear and in a sense arming themselves to the teeth.

Bottom line, we must be vigilant, keep informed on what is happening and preparted to have the basics of life to surviv:banghead:e the future, no matter what it brings.

Logan5579

December 19, 2012, 03:20 PM

Let's reflect on the probability that the sorts of things here being proposed have a lot of public support -- support from our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc., upon whom the politicians depend to be elected and re-elected. When enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, are afraid, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

To take that a step further, we the gun owners need to contact our representatives and politely, calmly, and logically refute the mainstream media and the knee jerk reation of a public that blindly believes the MSM. The more of us that the reps hear from, the more they can see that public opinion is not unified in its calls for more gun control. The loud left is making its case, we need to make ours as well...but without all the name calling and fearmongering that the liberals rely on.

Waywatcher

December 19, 2012, 03:20 PM

Frank nailed it. It wouldn't matter who was President at this point. The public outcry and reaction to this event is unprecedented. This goes far beyond any politicians and their machinations. The events of the next few weeks and months will determine whether it stays that way.

Exactly. The only real opponent Obama had this election was Romney, and Romney signed an AWB in his state. We are going through something big.

mboylan

December 19, 2012, 03:24 PM

Yep and how many said it can't/won't happen? Many are still quite satisfied he was re-elected....It was the will of the people if you believe the votes were counted and the results were correct. Winners and losers etc etc. spilled milk deal the hand we are delt.

So as others have said it might be advisable for those who care to email or write their elected reps and let them know how you feel in a respectful way.

It hasn't happened yet and hopefully thoughtful voices of reason will prevail. I am happy the house may/should block any inane new bills.
Nothing has happened. Right now it is all noise and smoke. The Democrats still remember how baldly the AWB hurt them. It's all noise from the same loudmouths that have always been fervently anti-gun.

When and if there is something concrete, we can start work.

Teachu2

December 19, 2012, 03:31 PM

Bet this ends up more like the current California laws - 10 round mags, bullet buttons, transfer dealers at gun shows. While it sucks, gun sales are still brisk here.

None of this would have made a difference in these shootings - but the sheeple want the illusion of action. Best thing we can do is introduce as many people as possible to firearms in a positive manner.

Every gun club and shooting range in the country should be sponsoring events that promote guns in a positive way - free instruction days for newbies, competitions that are fundraisers for community needs, etc.

Politicians play to the fears of the people. Remove the fear, the politicians lose the power - and quickly move on.

mboylan

December 19, 2012, 03:53 PM

I really thought he'd sign an executive order to implement all these things. Who's gonna fight it? Very few in congress are gonna openly be pro gun right now
He can't. An EO would probably cover something like stricter background checks and requiring feeds from more databases.

Please please learn more about our system of government if you are going to be politically active.

Zoogster

December 19, 2012, 04:22 PM

There is millions of ARs in the country. Millions of AKs.
Millions of common semi-auto pistols (used in most of the mass shootings) with standard capacity magazines.

The number of magazines sold is astonishing. There is so many magazines that if people were limited to buying pre-ban like before there would be a market so saturated with magazines that anyone could buy them years into the future relatively cheaply once panic subsided.

Now let us consider that mass shooters often do not plan to survive. They don't plan to pay back debt if they are not planning to live, and just about anyone can get loans or credit for thousands.
That means decades into the future anyone with ill intent that desired to have the guns or magazines restricted by legislation could afford them more easily than the average person that actually has to deal with a long term budget and plans to have to live and deal with thier financial decisions.

So availability would in no way change for those with ill intent who typically planned well in advance before attacks. They might just have to spend a little more or use credit they don't plan to pay back.

While I don't support any restrictions, a new ban that allowed transfers of anything owned prior to its implementation would be far more meaningless than the old AWB was, because the millions available are so much greater. What was once rare is now one of the most common firearms, and many people that own them have a good number of magazines.

It would have to at a minimum prevent transfers of items already owned to have any meaning.

If an AWB was allowed to pass I certainly see that as a strong possibility, either initially, or some years into it when a shooter uses some pre-ban items purchased after the ban and antis then want to 'close the Assault Weapon loophole.'

If prohibition on transfers of previously owned firearms and magazines was to happen, those items legally held would become financially worthless. Of no monetary value beyond what exempt police would pay.
This is the case in California where even passing registered assault weapons to heirs in the state is not allowed. Thier legality ends when the owner dies or loses the ability to own firearms, and they must leave the state or go to law enforcement.
If that was at a national level there wouldn't be other states to sell them to, and ITAR won't let you ship them out. So the monetary value becomes nothing.

Something to keep in mind while fighting the proposed legislation.

481

December 19, 2012, 04:24 PM

Thanks to Frank Ettin and Sam1911 for posts 53, 64, and 65- they offer an enlightening perspective.

michaelbsc

December 19, 2012, 04:30 PM

Looks like some merging happened.

The only thing he said about mental health during this conference was, "We need to make access to mental health care at least as accessible as guns."

Which is great, but yeah... that sure wasn't the foundation of his little speech.

And that's what *WE* need to be demanding. We, as the responsible gun owners, rely on the mental healthcare system to provide the tools and mechanisms that screen and identify the Gifford shooter, the Aurora shooter, and last week's shooter. And that system is failing. And we need to be concerned about it.

Frank nailed it. It wouldn't matter who was President at this point. The public outcry and reaction to this event is unprecedented. This goes far beyond any politicians and their machinations. The events of the next few weeks and months will determine whether it stays that way.

Exactly the point I was making over and over last night. This time is different. And like it or lump it, this needs to become our banner. I do not care that "this isn't our problem." Yes it is our problem. We have to become the drivers to solve the mental health problems so that the mental health problems don't become pushed off to us as a gun control solution. Regardless of whether it ought to be our problem or not, it's our problem now.

To take that a step further, we the gun owners need to contact our representatives and politely, calmly, and logically refute the mainstream media and the knee jerk reation of a public that blindly believes the MSM. The more of us that the reps hear from, the more they can see that public opinion is not unified in its calls for more gun control. The loud left is making its case, we need to make ours as well...but without all the name calling and fearmongering that the liberals rely on.

A lot of people have been saying we need to remind them of their "Constitutional Duty to defend our Rights" or we'll throw them out at the next election. OK, try that if you want. But it's going in the trash bin and check off as another rant from an idiot letter.

We need to shift conversation to mental health, not gun control.

The statements we need to be making to them need to go something like:

Dear Senator/Representative Q,

I am both saddened and alarmed at the recent events in the Great State of Connecticut. As you well know there is significant public debate circulating both at dinner tables and in public forums about how we as a nation need to respond.

A connecting thread in the most gruesome and tragic incidents in the past few years is that they did not involve criminal minds, but rather mentally disturbed minds who have been failed by our nations inadequate delivery of mental health services.

As a responsible and law abiding gun owner in your State/District, I have usually felt secure that the checks in place for controlling retail sales of guns - which are perfectly safe in responsible hands, but dangerous in incompetent hands - were adequate. It is frightening to me to discover that one of these systems, the nations mental healthcare system, is less adequate than perceived, as the evidence bears out.

As my elected official I am asking you, for myself and for all responsible gun owners, to spare no effort at seeking remedies to making this facet of our safety checks fully functional and adequate to its purpose. We, as gun owners, must depend upon the mental healthcare delivery system as a key ingredient to gun safety as much as we do criminal background checks and proper training at gun ranges. All of those components are necessary legs of the stool.

===========

Try something like this. Or just rant about "protect my second amendment rights or I'll vote against you."

But I'm telling you right now, the carrot of the small excise tax on retail sales earmarked for mental health will go a long ways toward making us look like reasonable participants in the discussion.

Michael - Your local maladjusted nonconforming minority

Deanimator

December 19, 2012, 04:47 PM

I thought Obama was serious about gun control until I found out that he'd put Biden in charge.

He might as well have put Paris Hilton in charge of a manned mission to Mars.

Who knows, maybe by the time Joe's through, we'll all be REQUIRED to own Thompson Submachineguns.

BBQLS1

December 19, 2012, 04:56 PM

I thought Obama was serious about gun control until I found out that he'd put Biden in charge.

He might as well have put Paris Hilton in charge of a manned mission to Mars.

Who knows, maybe by the time Joe's through, we'll all be REQUIRED to own Thompson Submachineguns.

Biden was in large part responsible for the passing of the Clinton era gun ban.

Logan5579

December 19, 2012, 05:00 PM

We need to shift conversation to mental health, not gun control.

The statements we need to be making to them need to go something like:

Dear Senator/Representative Q,

I am both saddened and alarmed at the recent events in the Great State of Connecticut. As you well know there is significant public debate circulating both at dinner tables and in public forums about how we as a nation need to respond.

A connecting thread in the most gruesome and tragic incidents in the past few years is that they did not involve criminal minds, but rather mentally disturbed minds who have been failed by our nations inadequate delivery of mental health services.

As a responsible and law abiding gun owner in your State/District, I have usually felt secure that the checks in place for controlling retail sales of guns - which are perfectly safe in responsible hands, but dangerous in incompetent hands - were adequate. It is frightening to me to discover that one of these systems, the nations mental healthcare system, is less adequate than perceived, as the evidence bears out.

As my elected official I am asking you, for myself and for all responsible gun owners, to spare no effort at seeking remedies to making this facet of our safety checks fully functional and adequate to its purpose. We, as gun owners, must depend upon the mental healthcare delivery system as a key ingredient to gun safety as much as we do criminal background checks and proper training at gun ranges. All of those components are necessary legs of the stool.

I agree, and your letter is very similar in content to the emails I have sent to my representatives. We can't just spout the "people kill people...etc", we have to be intelligent participants in the conversation because the MSM is already painting us as extremists... We have to show them that we aren't. Of course the media won't listen, their mind is made up, but the persons who don't own firearms and want them banned as a knee jerk fear reaction can be shown that we aren't the bloodthirst lunatics the media makes us out to be.

Trent

December 19, 2012, 05:07 PM

Man you guys are making me depressed.

Chin up.

We'll win one way or another.

Deanimator

December 19, 2012, 05:18 PM

Biden was in large part responsible for the passing of the Clinton era gun ban.
He could probably remember his own name back then...

rem44m

December 19, 2012, 05:57 PM

I am both saddened and alarmed at the recent events in the Great State of Connecticut. As you well know there is significant public debate circulating both at dinner tables and in public forums about how we as a nation need to respond.

A connecting thread in the most gruesome and tragic incidents in the past few years is that they did not involve criminal minds, but rather mentally disturbed minds who have been failed by our nations inadequate delivery of mental health services.

As a responsible and law abiding gun owner in your State/District, I have usually felt secure that the checks in place for controlling retail sales of guns - which are perfectly safe in responsible hands, but dangerous in incompetent hands - were adequate. It is frightening to me to discover that one of these systems, the nations mental healthcare system, is less adequate than perceived, as the evidence bears out.

As my elected official I am asking you, for myself and for all responsible gun owners, to spare no effort at seeking remedies to making this facet of our safety checks fully functional and adequate to its purpose. We, as gun owners, must depend upon the mental healthcare delivery system as a key ingredient to gun safety as much as we do criminal background checks and proper training at gun ranges. All of those components are necessary legs of the stool.

I have sent this and similar letters to my elected officials.

I have felt strongly about the mental health side of things for quite sometime. I sincerely hope that those who are in need, get help because of all this.

mister_murphy

December 19, 2012, 06:05 PM

I think the cat is out of the bag so to speak on many folks owning standard capacity mags, and semi auto Ar-15's and other similar rifles as well.

The Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, North Carolina, racked up more than $1 million in sales yesterday for the best single-day performance since the store opened in 1959, according to Justin Anderson, director of online sales. At the top of shoppers’ lists was the Bushmaster AR-15, the model of rifle used at Newtown that sells for as much as $4,000 and had almost sold out, he said.

$1 million is a ton of sales in a single day, and its been going strong since Obama was elected first, and actually was strong since the ban ended in 04. Its going to be impossible to put the "genie back in the bottle" now, and the more I think on it, the more that I feel that putting more restrictions will only create a black market for certain firearms, mags, etc. That, in my mind will make firearm owners look even worse.

If we are going to survive this we need to really work on, and move forward trying to find a way to improve mental health care, and improve it long term.

Edit to add:

Folks who are spending this type of money, say $1000 for a rifle, or thereabouts, tend to usually be politically active in some form, either at least voting, or also eith contributing money or time to politcal campaigns

Hollowdweller

December 19, 2012, 06:05 PM

I may be in the minority here but I don't think much of anything has a chance of passing.

The gun control of the 90's depended on some republicans and I think there will be NO republicans this time arond.

I can't imagine any blue dog rural democrat voting for an AWB either. I have reason to believe for instance that Sen's Warner and Manchins offices are being bombarded right now by angry constituents and I don't know about Warner, but Manchin is already walking it back.

Republicans are laying low hoping for a replay of what happened after 94.

michaelbsc

December 19, 2012, 06:20 PM

Man you guys are making me depressed.

Chin up.

We'll win one way or another.

We might win, but not with the tired old strategies of the past.

They led us from one compromise to another.

We cannot compromise any more. This has to be the last stand, and we have to be clear and rational.

For two nights everyone's been accusing me of being a troll because I think we should get ahead of the left instead of hunker down and see what we can compromise. Fiddlesticks.

Like I said in some other posts, gun owners may not be a numerical majority, but the hard antis are a very small minority. If we aren't shrill, and can ally with much of the uncommitted mainstream, we can command a superior audience with Congress despite the media. Congress cares about votes. Nothing else.

If we can get a serious lobbying effort with the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, etc. to get them aware that gun owners are hard core serious about gun safety, and we're willing to twist the arms of Congress as well as get LaPierre to twist the arms of congress to fund research and services then we'll become friends of the medical community instead of pariah in the medical community.

Here's the carrot excise tax I was talking about. Now, anyone who is so foolish as to think that this two paragraph "White House petition" is anything more an a strawman object to use a talking point is extremely naive. No legislator is going to pass this "just like Michael wrote it." But the idea is to show that we get it that we're concerned about the problem. And they're going to cram it down our throats any way, so lets make it something we control.

http://wh.gov/nTna

Here's some more information about this petition:

$2 Federal Excise on Handguns and Long Guns earmarked for Mental
Health Services

Recent shootings have focused national attention on gun violence. The
dramatic events in Newton, CT involved a young male. The Aurora, CO event
involved a young male. The Tucson, AZ event involved a young male. Others
were the same. And a connecting thread is that these young men were mentally
ill, which is not a condition they voluntarily chose. These are failures of
the nation's mental health system, not failures of gun control.

We should establish a $2 per handgun or long gun point of retail excise tax
earmarked for mental health services to improve the state of the
nation's capacity to identify and treat patients in need. These funds
should not be part of the general fund, and this excise tax funds the benefit
just like hunting licenses fund wildlife management.

jon_in_wv

December 19, 2012, 06:24 PM

once again the Republicans ans pro-gun Democrats have remained silent while the media, obama, and the rest of the antis gin up the propaganda machine. When are we going to elect some people who have the cajones to defend the second amendment. After the Virginia Tech shooting the ATF sent a report to congress calling to improve the mental health reporting requirements already in law. Its horribly enforced and they wanted it properly funded and enforced. Did Feinstein or Schumer act on that? Nope. Instead they tried to pass a bill that would prevent anyone who ever had any treatment whatsoever from ever owning a firearm including veterans with PTSD or people who were treated for depression 20 years ago.

jon_in_wv

December 19, 2012, 06:25 PM

I am REALLY trying to bite off smug comments to those who kept saying that Obama doesn't want to ban guns.

OMG me too.

toivo

December 19, 2012, 06:26 PM

I don't know how many of the people calling for a renewal of the AWB realize that Connecticut has an AWB, one that looks a lot like the '94-'04 one:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm

However, it doesn't look like they have the 10-round limit for magazine capacity. Maybe I'm missing something.

If they aren't completely clueless, I suspect they'll go for something stronger this time. That's a big "if" ...

ACP

December 19, 2012, 06:51 PM

to the OP, where is the source for your claims about what the president is proposing? Please link to it.

Because this is what is on the NY Times just a few hours ago: note the phrase "DID NOT OFFER ANY SPECIFICS"

"Mr. Obama, with Mr. Biden standing beside him, did not offer any specifics about the proposals. But he promised to confront the longstanding opposition in Congress that has previously blocked broad gun control measures."

Derek Zeanah

December 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

The source was the press conference. Typed it up after he said it. I'm sure you can find it online somewhere.

Expect Biden + the VPC folks to come back in a few days. From the strength and unity we're seeing on this one, it looks like they've have this planned and are acting from a script.

I wish we were more prepared.

Bubba613

December 19, 2012, 06:58 PM

I may be in the minority here but I don't think much of anything has a chance of passing.

The gun control of the 90's depended on some republicans and I think there will be NO republicans this time arond.

I can't imagine any blue dog rural democrat voting for an AWB either. I have reason to believe for instance that Sen's Warner and Manchins offices are being bombarded right now by angry constituents and I don't know about Warner, but Manchin is already walking it back.
Hello, Reason.

The longer it drags on, the less chance they have of anything passing. Once the incident gets knocked off the front pages people will not be pushing for gun control.
Obama has never led on any issue. He will not lead on this one. He will let Democrats in Congress come up with ideas and try to pass it and he will give speeches about it. Which is what he always does.
In the end they will compromise on something. Probably requiring background checks at "sanctioned events", i.e. gun shows. It will kill gunshows but so what? They will also tighten up the FFL system. Probably higher fees and fewer dealers with more inspections. Say good bye to $20 transfers. And a good thing too.
Anything else would require too much agreement among pro gun Dems and GOP.

RX-178

December 19, 2012, 07:01 PM

I don't know, I don't see taping Biden to form a committee is a 'we have a plan and let's put it into motion' move.

It seems a lot more like a 'I want to do nothing but I want to look like I'm doing something' move to me.

Now I'm not naive enough to think they're going to let the opportunity pass completely, but I'm willing to bet that what we're seeing is them clamming up until the NRA's press conference on Friday.

They're playing defense, folks.

armysniper

December 19, 2012, 07:12 PM

Used gun prices on AR 15's local sales message boards are through the roof. Just last week there were plenty of low end AR 15's for sale in the $700-800 range. Now there are hardly any listed and the ones that are have super high price tags.

In practical terms, the impact has been minimal. If you buy a gun from a non-dealer at the show, you fill out the standard BATF form and complete a back ground check using a common host dealer. No transactions can occur in the parking lot, etc. The law does NOT prevent sales and transfers outside of established gun show events.

I am sure this law has not prevented a single determined criminal from getting a gun, but Judging from crowded recent shows, this Colorado requirement has NOT negatively influenced the firearms buying experience.

Of course, the devil is in the details. You and I probably define a "gun show" as an advertised event occurring in large public venue. The new progressive definition would probably include two citizens in a basement. :barf:

lionking

December 19, 2012, 07:42 PM

I know many here are most concerned with a potential ban or restrictions, so am I. However whether a ban becomes law or not we must take the lead at pushing forward issues to address things like mental health to insure the best that can be that people unstable don't have the ability to act out in such ways.

A gun man going into a school is intolerable like this. Gun owners or not, gun enthusiasts or not, we are all people with loved ones and nobody wants this to continue happening. One can't 100% guarantee it no matter how much security or laws or health availability there is, but we all have a vested interest in preventing this.

I hope even if a ban doesn't see the light of day we don't become complacent and just forget about this.

Pukindog12

December 19, 2012, 07:56 PM

Exactly. The only real opponent Obama had this election was Romney, and Romney signed an AWB in his state. We are going through something big.

I fear also that we are going through something big. But I sure as hell hope I am wrong.

NCJT

December 19, 2012, 08:04 PM

my fellow red blooded americans. it is time to stand up and fight for our rights. this is the last straw. and they are about to go too far. i am merely a hillbilly from the mountains of nc and i'm scared. i know i'm beating a dead horse, but i cant wrap my head around how ignorant anti gun liberals can be. they actually believe that gun control is the answer. it is not hard to see that it will only give criminals defenseless targets. teachers are among the most trusted people in america, so why not trust them with a gun to defend themselves and our children, instead of making them easy picking. train them up, and set forth guidelines and arm them that is the answer, along with more responsible armed citizens willing to intervene and save lives. here is an idea lets put a couple soldiers in each school to defend our children, isn't that part of what they do defend the country against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, would that not be an effective alternative. i agree the carnage must stop. but banning or making gun laws tougher is not the answer. all of these mass shootings have occurred in places where the citizens were disarmed. nobody robs the guy with a glock sticker in the window of his truck because they know they will meet resistance. here in rural area i live the local crooks will tell you that they avoid the areas where they know that us "rednecks" are armed, in the local convenience store where i live the owner keeps a loaded shotgun in plain view behind the counter and in 50 years hes never been robbed, burglarized or had a problem with shoplifting, and just down the road is the same type store without the mentioned shotgun and is robbed and stolen from on a regular basis. i call this indisputable evidence, i know the dead horse, but we need to publicize these facts and demand that the anti gunners argue against them with facts. let publicize all of the lives saved by armed citizens. i am a tobacco user myself, but tobacco kills more than guns and no one is trying to ban tobacco. these granola head idiots are trying to legalize marijuana and ban guns. we have become a nation of media believing wussies. its time we all stood up. our government is not going to protect us we have to do something as citizens. now i dont know it to be a fact i cant keep up with politics as i am a working class man who is busy keeping up my family not collecting from our "support our lazy people" government, but i have heard from lots of people that romney won the popular vote, that our "electoral college and fair government" put that idiot back in. if that's not proof that we are no longer a democracy i don't know what is. now folks i don't know what to do. all of the things like writing letters to our crooked politicions i dont think is going to work. so maybe we can bounce around some ideas. what do we need to do to protect our rights? we need to fight and i'm not meaning violence by no means i mean how do we as average citizens get into the decision making process. it is obvious that voting no longer fair. i have found a place where you can sign petitions to the dumbama administration it is whitehouse.gov/petitions. so any other ideas. lets stand together, its what our nation was founded on.....
food for thought. is the president and other top politicians going to give up their armed security, no, so why should i not be allowed to defend myself and my family by being armed. what makes them so special.

michaelbsc

December 19, 2012, 08:10 PM

However whether a ban becomes law or not we must take the lead at pushing forward issues to address things like mental health to insure the best that can be that people unstable don't have the ability to act out in such ways.
[...]
One can't 100% guarantee it no matter how much security or laws or health availability there is, but we all have a vested interest in preventing this.

Thank God!

This is what I have been saying for days now. *WE MUST BECOME THE CHAMPIONS* for this action in our society.

And he has more than a couple hundred posts, so maybe lionking isn't a troll.

Bur what he said is exactly the same thing I have been saying. THIS HAS BECOME OUR ISSUE TO SOLVE.

Yes, we're going to do their work for them. Get past that. We cannot let this keep happening just because we didn't cause it.

ColdDayInHell

December 19, 2012, 08:14 PM

So how do these executive orders work? He says something is illegal and sends the storm troopers door to door taking your stuff. What a brilliant way to incite some nasty reprisals
Almost putting us wayyy past the red zone and making everyone see how much of a police state we're in. I seriously hope this won't happen but the moonbats in my area are coming out of the woodwork. They are impossible! But so am I.

Zoogster

December 19, 2012, 08:16 PM

.455_Hunter said: In practical terms, the impact has been minimal. If you buy a gun from a non-dealer at the show, you fill out the standard BATF form and complete a back ground check using a common host dealer.

Well in California it certainly has an impact. The impact includes a few things. Let us start with price. What was once a free transfer between private parties now requires all the fees that buying the gun does. This is $35 in California for in state transfers.
If it was a familiy member, neighbor, or someone else etc you would already see them and could have made the trade without going out of the way. Now you must both go in person to a local FFL, typically a gun shop.
If you live in a more rural commute zone that can be some distance. You will probably spend a good $5 each way in gas to the nearest place, per person if you arrive in seperate vehicles.
So you are up near $50 additional per private transfer for the buyer, and added gas expense for the seller as well now.
That is just the financial cost.
That is all because the 'gun show loophole' was closed, and it applies to all private transfers and is not specific to gun shows.

There is also the time component, what was once a fast thing now results in addition to the original meeting to inspect or show interest in purchasing you must also go drive and spend time at the FFL to transfer. Thats more time out of the schedule, and requires a time when both people have some free time they are willing to make the trip.

In addition to that it results in partial registration of all firearms. There is paperwork linking that gun to who did the transfer that is with the FFL.
Many retail chain stores also have it in thier own private easy to browse or download databases. So a private entity has all your information electronically stored with your gun purchases long term. Just sitting there to be browsed, stolen, sold for marketing research, etc
So its not just available to the government, but your purchases are registered with the private corporations and on file too.
Well some people don't like all firearms registered for several reasons. One being because sometimes legislators decide to ban things. Not only does it make it easier, but emboldens them because of more presumed success if they already know who has what.

Closing private transfers also means if someone is on record as having bought a gun they didn't sell it to someone else, because if they did then there would be yet another record of it. So it is easier to narrow down who has exactly what guns.
4473 records are a lot more complete and a lot closer to registration without private transfers to make that data less reliable over time.

harrygunner

December 19, 2012, 08:20 PM

Our reasoning and the content of Constitution are just as sound after this as before it.

They are using this tragic event to do what they always wanted to do. They ignore all the reasons why it's the wrong thing to do as well as the fact it has never worked in the past.

I believe we need to fight harder than them to make sure Congress doesn't get the votes.

Ben86

December 19, 2012, 08:26 PM

With as many pro-gun decisions from the courts lately I find it hard to believe that Obama would think an outright ban would be even be perceived as legal. Rest assured he and the regime will not let this opportunity for more gun control go to waste, but I bet they will try something sneaky and insidious first.

We really need to come together and make our voices heard. Let your elected officials know that you do not believe more gun laws are the answer to mass shootings. Such things as better security, a focus on mental health issues, and better parenting would do much more to protect people.

armoredman

December 19, 2012, 09:16 PM

I wish we were more prepared.
The cry of every general who ever lived.

lionking

December 19, 2012, 09:43 PM

michaelbsc..

no I am not troll. lol. I am a gun owner concerned like any other what has happened, what is happening, not just with the potential for restrictions on the 2nd amendment but also the misuse of firearms. Is not safety the first and constant thing we are instructed in on the use of firearms?

I don't understand your comment that we may have to do their job for them though. We must do it for ourselves because like any American we do not want this happening again not just because it threatens the 2nd amendment rights by politicians after the fact but because we are people with friends and family also who find this behavior inexcusable.

It is our responsibility as firearm owners, as Americans, as people with people we love also to lead this debate to useful and changing results to promote safe use of firearms.

It is others on this forum that helped me realize the need to first responders to promote better mental health care and safety. It was this last incident that made me realize just how bad it needs to be improved.

Some here have mentioned a dollar amount donation or tax per gun sale to go to mental health care, I am down for that.

I am also of the belief that schools should have beefed security even armed staff but that should be the decision of local government and I don't think we should require , as in mandatory arming of teachers ( which many teachers would resist anyway) it should be voluntary.

wow6599

December 19, 2012, 09:55 PM

The 2nd amendment means a lot of things, but as the quote goes -

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I pray we never know the reality of this.......

gunguy0829

December 19, 2012, 09:56 PM

So here is what I think we all need to do
1) Support the NRA
2) Write letters to congress stating we do not belive our gun rites need to be taken away. And by all means dont stop standing up for your rights.

Obama seems to think that a majority of americans belive that he is right about gun control, I say we stop him in his tracks and show him 4 million Americans do not agree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Bubba613

December 19, 2012, 10:03 PM

The NRA will sell out.

HOOfan_1

December 19, 2012, 10:05 PM

The NRA will sell out.

If they do...they lose their funding and cease to exist

gunguy0829

December 19, 2012, 10:06 PM

With or with out them we need to stand strong as gun owners, we don't need anyone but ourselves to make our point known.

gunguy0829

December 19, 2012, 10:08 PM

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Sam1911

December 19, 2012, 10:09 PM

The NRA will sell out.Considering the progress of the last 20 years, the hyper-aggressive rhetoric they've been putting out for at least the last 10 -- and the fact that they're currently signing up 8 THOUSAND new members EACH DAY since the shooting, I'd say selling out is about the least likely course they'll take.

They may go a little overboard up on the podium and alienate too many people...I can picture that, but settling or selling out seems a remote possibility.

lionking

December 19, 2012, 10:11 PM

What do we do about this? First we shouldn't go into rants about tyranny and refreshing the tree of liberty. The average American is seeing it as they can't even let their kid go to school without worrying some madman is going to murder them. Telling them that Obama is coming after their guns to bring tyranny isn't going to win their support it will probably turn them off since they know it isn't a call for a complete ban of all firearms.

I suggest staying away from common sound bites and use calm responses directing the issue toward increased mental health capabilities.

The anti's are sure to look for pro gun people to put on their shows who will only respond with "guns don't kill people, people do". And while in essence that is true it isn't going to help win over people they are going to see it as a simpleton response. I saw it happen during the Clinton years how they cherry picked pro gun people to interview that made their side seem more " common sense" for lack of a better term.

gunguy0829

December 19, 2012, 10:16 PM

We need to make our points known without seeming like revolutionaries, we need to have to use a small amount of well thought out words, "walk quietly, but carry a big stick" but we we need not back down for any reason.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

-- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

wow6599

December 19, 2012, 10:35 PM

Obama seems to think that a majority of americans belive that he is right about gun control, I say we stop him in his tracks and show him 4 million Americans do not agree

Is that the number of NRA members? I can say, without reservation, that number is is probably 40 times higher.....if not more.

gunguy0829

December 19, 2012, 10:38 PM

Thats the number from the NRA, but there are between 43 and 55 million gun owners in this counrty, another stat said 80 million.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

LubeckTech

December 19, 2012, 10:51 PM

If we could get all of those who are buying guns today to become politically active would it give us enough of a voice to make a difference????

lionking

December 19, 2012, 10:52 PM

The NRA is the leading 2nd amendment lobbyist but there are many times more gun owners than just those in the NRA and those people vote also.

As much as I hate the fact that if I want to go shooting I might not be able to get ammo or it will be sky high due to mass buying, that mass buying does send a message to politicians.

You can see a media article posted like say " the CDC predicts gun deaths will out pace auto deaths by 2015" which in 1992 there wouldn't have been much ability to counteract that propaganda but now with the internet under many media articles people post responses and a VAST majority of responses call out these reports and are pro 2nd amendment responses. I wouldn't be surprised if news links like Yahoo and Google shut down responses to articles lol.

You know, I know it is supply and demand but gun retailers have a vested interest in continuing sales also to show politicians people want the right, if they just kept prices steady and didn't jack up prices it would allow even more people to continue buying in mass.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 08:10 AM

Many of us know that there will be some changes coming from Congress. Like most people here, I wonder just what it will be and how will they do it. After hearing speeches, round tables, local (CT) news cast, etc, I believe we are looking at several new laws.

1. "They" are going after the evil black rifles. The "AR" is now the official evil against our country. It replaced Bin Laden. Expect "them" to go after "military type" weapons hard and fast. How, when there are millions already in circulation? They won't/can't just ban them. They can force registration of any military type weapon and tax them like they do with the full auto weapons and supressors. They can make it illegal to sell, transfer or give your military type weapon to anybody else. They won't take it away but you can't use it for barter any more.
2. They can/will ban hi-cap magazines for anything semi-automatic. We've seen that before. This time they may not allow grandfathering because there are so many on the street. They may just say that in year 20xx they will be illegal to own or possess any hi-cap magazine. Period. There will be no 10 year moratorium.
3. They will remove private sales of any gun. Period. Any transfer will have to go thru an FFL like many states already have. This "will" remove selling to people who aren't allowed, by law, to buy or own any type of gun. This closes the "gun show loophole that so many talk about and fear.
4. They may "require" a sign off by a mental health professional (govt run) before issuing or renewing any permit we are now required to have. This is another step and expense for those of us who already have to have a permit to carry or own any type of gun. This would address the mental health aspect of ownership. However, the government can decide what is determined to be too "fragile" to own a gun. This is a scary thought for sure.
5. Taxation of any retail sale of guns or gun related accessories to help pay for the process to be implemented and run. They could tax guns, ammo, mags, reloading equiptment and components, holsters, scopes, etc. If it's gun related, it's taxed.

These thoughts are sobering. Those who say "just say no" are living in a fantasy world right now. There will be changes of some sort but we don't know what they will be and how it will work. No matter what it is, it won't be good. I feel we'll take steps forward in CCW and lose ground on an AWB. I don't think we'll have a choice. I think change is coming and we won't be happy.

.333 Nitro Express

December 20, 2012, 08:26 AM

Larry,

A wee bit pessimistic, are we?

I don't see any of the things you predict coming to pass. That would be the most draconian set of anti-gun laws I've seen passed in my lifetime. I promise you, that's not going to happen. Wait for the media to move on to the next shiny object (which may be already happening), for 0 to go on his Hawaiian vacation, for Congress to brawl over the "cliff" and to go out of session, and once everything settles the fervor to ban and regulate will have died down.

45_auto

December 20, 2012, 08:28 AM

larryh1108's crystal ball must not be getting the same channel as mine.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 08:40 AM

The only thing I see "out there" is the mental health sign off. We already know they are going after the AR type rifles. They can't just ban them. Knowing that the AR is in their sights, what do you think they will do other than limiting the magazines? What will appease the bleeding hearts?

The hi cap mag ban is almost a given.
The gun show loophole ban is almost a given and many states already have addressed it.
If anyone here thinks taxation is not in our future, your head is buried in the sand.
So, other than the mental health signoff, what is the "crazy thinking"?

beatledog7

December 20, 2012, 08:44 AM

Defeatism is one of the strongest forces in human experience. If we start believing that our efforts to stop the antis will inevitably fail, then they surely will fail.

If we keep believing we can stop them, we at least have a chance.

I choose that chance.

cskny

December 20, 2012, 08:48 AM

If we could get all of those who are buying guns today to become politically active would it give us enough of a voice to make a difference????

frankly, you miss a very real point. Not all those buying guns today agree with a "no changes" or even "less legislation" opinion. In fact, not all members here even agree with these opinions.

Just because like minded members post redundant and repetative affirmations in threads like this doesn't mean all gun owners agree. I'm not sure why folks here draw such grand conclusions, especially when other threads have illustrated we don't all agree.

But, when members here have historically shared differing opinions they are almost always accused of being an anti-plant or a troll. So they learn to stay quiet and don't participate here. It doesn't make them non-gun owners, it just further distorts your community conclusion that everyone thinks alike.

Change is coming not simply because "the other side" wants it. Change is coming because fellow gun owners also recognize changes are needed. That's why it's really coming.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 08:59 AM

Fellow gun owners, this past week has shaken the core of our nation. Right or wrong, the masses want something done. We have a president who is determined to make changes. "They" have a mission and won't back down until they feel they've done all they can. We are holding what is ours by Constitutional decree. "They" won't take away our right to bear arms. "They" will make changes without our approval. "They" won't take away our right to bear arms but they are going after a segment of the gun market that "they" feel is not necessary for "us". They already did it with full auto guns. Right or wrong, they will not let this one pass with time. "They" will feel it is a good compromise. RKBA, sure, no problem, just not what we want to use. You guys really believe this will go away with time and distance or are you just thinking positively knowing they will do it anyways? There's a difference between reality and wishful thinking.

beatledog7

December 20, 2012, 09:06 AM

You guys really believe this will go away with time and distance or are you just thinking positively knowing they will do it anyways? There's a difference between reality and wishful thinking.

The best guarantee of being right about anything is to believe you will fail.

I see an awful lot of people who seem to be more interested in being right about failing than in being successful.

Kahr33556

December 20, 2012, 09:08 AM

How can they track private sales of a gun thats never been registered ? they can't, lets hope they don't try to make people register there guns. That is what really scares me because that is the step before confescation.

jim243

December 20, 2012, 09:34 AM

There are at least 10 things I can think of that they can do that would change the availability of firearms without effecting our right to keep and bare arms.

I am not listing them since I do not want to give anyone ideas of how to restrict us any more than we already are. But most of them are very simple and do not require any new laws written. Some are already in place in verious parts of the country. Almost all of the changes would be seen by the general public as a move toward a safer community.

Those of you that want to put your head in the sand and say we do not have a problem, need to go to the parents of the 20 children killed and listen to them for a while, because that is whom we will be hearing on TV and in print for the next six months.

Like they say, wake up and smell the coffee.
Jim

DammitBoy

December 20, 2012, 09:36 AM

We might win, but not with the tired old strategies of the past.

They led us from one compromise to another.

We cannot compromise any more. This has to be the last stand, and we have to be clear and rational.

For two nights everyone's been accusing me of being a troll because I think we should get ahead of the left instead of hunker down and see what we can compromise. Fiddlesticks.

Like I said in some other posts, gun owners may not be a numerical majority, but the hard antis are a very small minority. If we aren't shrill, and can ally with much of the uncommitted mainstream, we can command a superior audience with Congress despite the media. Congress cares about votes. Nothing else.

If we can get a serious lobbying effort with the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, etc. to get them aware that gun owners are hard core serious about gun safety, and we're willing to twist the arms of Congress as well as get LaPierre to twist the arms of congress to fund research and services then we'll become friends of the medical community instead of pariah in the medical community.

Here's the carrot excise tax I was talking about. Now, anyone who is so foolish as to think that this two paragraph "White House petition" is anything more an a strawman object to use a talking point is extremely naive. No legislator is going to pass this "just like Michael wrote it." But the idea is to show that we get it that we're concerned about the problem. And they're going to cram it down our throats any way, so lets make it something we control.

http://wh.gov/nTna

Here's some more information about this petition:

$2 Federal Excise on Handguns and Long Guns earmarked for Mental
Health Services

Recent shootings have focused national attention on gun violence. The
dramatic events in Newton, CT involved a young male. The Aurora, CO event
involved a young male. The Tucson, AZ event involved a young male. Others
were the same. And a connecting thread is that these young men were mentally
ill, which is not a condition they voluntarily chose. These are failures of
the nation's mental health system, not failures of gun control.

We should establish a $2 per handgun or long gun point of retail excise tax
earmarked for mental health services to improve the state of the
nation's capacity to identify and treat patients in need. These funds
should not be part of the general fund, and this excise tax funds the benefit
just like hunting licenses fund wildlife management.

This is the best idea I've seen yet. It focuses on the real problem. It shows gun owners being involved and proactive and it might actually work.

armoredman

December 20, 2012, 10:04 AM

Sure, let them put another tax on gun owners for something we didn't do. How about a similar tax on granola and candy bars? A mental health tax on Froot Loops?
The leftists have already tried more than once to place additional crushing taxes on firearms and ammunition, attempting to say this "sin" tax "proves" we are going to be part of the solution to the problem "we created".
Baloney. Let this proposal gain traction in the legislature and before you know it you end up with your $2 tax increased to %10,000 - which HAS ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED.
Nope, not gonna buy it - WE didn't cause this debacle, and we don't need to pay for it. They can tax hybrid cars and wind farms for their money.

45_auto

December 20, 2012, 10:13 AM

Expect "them" to go after "military type" weapons hard and fast. How, when there are millions already in circulation? They won't/can't just ban them. They can force registration of any military type weapon and tax them like they do with the full auto weapons and supressors. They can make it illegal to sell, transfer or give your military type weapon to anybody else. They won't take it away but you can't use it for barter any more.

Take a look at ANY AR made during the last ban, or a California or Connecticut compliant AR today. The weapon used at Sandy Hook complied with the Connecticut AW ban. Any cosmetic feature you name can be removed.

The "military type" weapons you're trying to describe are called "semi-automatic rifles". Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to think that they can ban all semi-autos.

DammitBoy

December 20, 2012, 10:31 AM

This is what I am posting on all the forums I belong to outside of the gun community.

---

There are only a few things that could help limit gun violence in the United States.

1) make all guns magically disappear. This won't happen, even though I've seen foolish people advocate that here and elsewhere.

2) End our prohibition on drugs. This could and should happen. It would dramatically lower inner city violence that costs so many lives each year - it's the biggest reason our gun deaths numbers are higher than anyone else's. Additionally, the taxes earned from pot sales would help with a multitude of problems.

Legalized drugs would cut the rug out from under the drug cartels, which would help lower drug related violence amongst our border states with Mexico.

3) Mental Healthcare reform. Most of these school shootings and mass shootings were done by people with severe mental health issues. How do we address that? I suggest we have an excise tax of .50 on every box of ammo and a $2.00 excise tax on every firearm sold to be specifically tagged for mental health reform and support. These taxes would have to be protected from our thieving politicians however. They should be earmarked much the same way hunting license fees go to wildlife management programs.

4) Firearm safety programs in our schools. Knowledge is power. Fewer accidents happen when fear is overcome by knowledge. Most kids today learn about guns through video games and movies. When I grew up, we were taught in the cub scouts how to shoot and gun safety. In high school, we had a rifle team. In college, we had the ROTC shooting class. Those things have become politically incorrect and don't exist anymore.

Assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and any other such nonsense will not do squat. Look up the effect of the Clinton AWB - the sum gain was zero.

Da40CalGlock27

December 20, 2012, 10:42 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNid71pvxfI

mister_murphy

December 20, 2012, 01:20 PM

3) Mental Healthcare reform. Most of these school shootings and mass shootings were done by people with severe mental health issues. How do we address that? I suggest we have an excise tax of .50 on every box of ammo and a $2.00 excise tax on every firearm sold to be specifically tagged for mental health reform and support. These taxes would have to be protected from our thieving politicians however.

I would be against the tax because no matter how strict you try to ear mark the funds from the tax, the politicians will find a way to either redirect part, or all of it, so there again we have another unfunded mandate.

How many times have we ssen funds earmarked or connected with something before only to have the politicians use it elsewhere in a way that makes them look "good" but deprives something that should be required.

Sorry, not buying it.

Otherwise yes, lets work to reform mental health, and we could use the already in place tax on firearms and ammo to help fund it

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 03:15 PM

Ok, how do YOU define a "military type" weapon?

Nothing that is for sale to the general public that I'm aware of. However, those are the words of the people trying to step on our rights, not mine.

I see an awful lot of people who seem to be more interested in being right about failing than in being successful.

I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by "being right". I want less restrictions, not more. There is not one thing I "want" to happen to make this all go away except for nothing to happen.

It's one thing to say "no" or "from my cold, dead hands" or "Molon Labe" on a chat board and it's another thing when the wheels are in motion to do what we say that "can't" or "won't" do. Positive thinking is nice but the threat is real and it will be relentless until they are satisfied. Pretending it will go away or it's all hot air is not going to solve anything. Talking about our options may help us down the road. Saying nothing will happen is a fantasy.

Baldman

December 20, 2012, 03:50 PM

Is it me or is DC being a little hypocritical here? They want to restrict or ban Americans from purchasing a certain type of firemarm with our own money, yet they sell / give these same arms with ammuntion to questionable (at best) recipients that have been paid for buy hard working citizens.

Let's see guns to Mexico (Fast & Furious), $ to Egypt and the Muslim brotherood, plus how many unamed and unknown arms deals to people who will 100% use them to kill others.

Just makes me shake my head.

michaelbsc

December 20, 2012, 04:09 PM

Listen folks, the tax petition I created at the White House web site has the authority of an empty box of Kleenex nose wipes.

It really means nothing.

It is a strawman rhetorical device that is necessary to illustrate the the gun owners are concerned and engaged in this discussion instead of being the hick ya-hoos we're usually portrayed to be.

Any of you who really and truly think that someone from the House or the Senate is going to take those two paragraphs I wrote in a few minutes at a Taco Bell eating a burrito as actual legislation might just *BE* that ignorant.

But we can't have the conversation without a prop.

Ok, hate the idea of an excise tax, propose another funding scheme.

"This isn't our problem. We didn't create it."

Yep. You're right. Tough. It's a serious safety issue for us.

We depend on the criminal justice system in this country to provide a level of screening to keep guns away from forbidden people. That leg of the stool works well enough, and we count on it without even thinking about it.

Likewise we depend on the mental healthcare system in this country to keep guns away from forbidden people. It is becoming more and more clear that this leg of the stool isn't bearing its weight.

Granted, 200 other facets of society are also suffering from failures in the mental healthcare system. A lot of homeless people in the streets - who aren't engaged in shooting rampages - are victims of that same failed system.

But our interface with that system failure is splashed across the headlines in a big way. And in a way that not only hurts society at large, but threatens us materially. So if we get a childish cranial-rectal inversion here we're going to get creamed.

So rather than "waiting to see what happens" we had darn well better start becoming the advocates to get the system fixed.

Ok, so it's true there is a danger in allowing an excise tax. Start with $2 now and in a year Feinstein makes it $2K. Point taken.

But along with the fact that we've got to advocate getting the system fixed, most here are pretty conservative, and nationwide changes cost a bunch of money. So we also have to look like we stepping up to the plate somehow. Suggest something.

I've already said LaPierre needs to go see the directors at the National Institute of Mental Health and promise them that he will twist the arms off of a few Congresscritters for funding. Those guys at the various government agencies are political animals just like the rest of Washington.

And while the medical community currently hates us with a purple passion (remember the thread we were talking about being labeled as mentally ill just for owning a gun - started by me the troll) if we start pouring funding into the system they will start loving us. Trust me on this. My wife has worked in that system for decades. That's how it works.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 04:37 PM

Michael, if any member here makes a suggestion that is counter to "just say no" then we aren't gun lovers or we are selling out for convenience. The threads here have showm me that no one wants to give an inch. I don't blame them but they think that because they say no, it won't happen.

Any attempt to discuss options or counter proposals that could appease the vocal masses is met with "no", no compromise, read the Constitution, etc. It seems that they don't get it and any attempt at dialog that is productive leads to name calling and bullying. When the new laws come down these same men will cry foul and write thread after thread of what they could have done or should have done. I want to be proactive and these boards want to be reactive. I've given up trying to reason with people who are closed minded.

michaelbsc

December 20, 2012, 04:46 PM

The only thing I see "out there" is the mental health sign off. We already know they are going after the AR type rifles. They can't just ban them. Knowing that the AR is in their sights, what do you think they will do other than limiting the magazines? What will appease the bleeding hearts?

The hi cap mag ban is almost a given.
The gun show loophole ban is almost a given and many states already have addressed it.
If anyone here thinks taxation is not in our future, your head is buried in the sand.
So, other than the mental health signoff, what is the "crazy thinking"?

There is already a defacto mental health sign off. And we need to work our patooties off to keep it the way it is, then make it work properly.

The last thing we want is a psych exam for every purchase or annually.

The way things work now the pre-sale check runs an analysis against a database of all kinds of records, some of which are mental health records.

If you have ever been involuntarily committed, more than enough time ago for the database to update (a day or two), then you'll get a no-go. I think there might be some way to clear that flag, but I don't really know the details. Obviously, if you're getting involuntarily committed today the database won't be updated today. But if you're getting committed today, you probably aren't getting released today to go make a purchase today.

What's missing now is a mechanism, and I have no good suggestion so don't jump all over me, for a concerned provider to flag a non-commitable patient.

My wife has a whole roster of patients that I don't have an ounce of trouble meeting in the mall or around town and saying hello. But there's no way in hell I'm handing them a gun unless its a zombie apocalypse and I need all the help I can get. These patients don't have loss by due process, and due process is just as sacrosanct as RKBA. This is the tough part. You can't just take their rights on a whim. I'd be pissed. You'd be pissed they'd be pissed. And if they're not committable, it might be OK come Monday morning. Or not. This is tough.

And please, since I am just a spouse, if there is a medical provider reading, jump in and give better details.

But we don't want annual psych exams.

45_auto

December 20, 2012, 04:58 PM

Those who say "just say no" are living in a fantasy world right now. There will be changes of some sort but we don't know what they will be and how it will work. No matter what it is, it won't be good. I feel we'll take steps forward in CCW and lose ground on an AWB. I don't think we'll have a choice. I think change is coming and we won't be happy.

Any attempt to discuss options or counter proposals that could appease the vocal masses is met with "no", no compromise, read the Constitution, etc. It seems that they don't get it and any attempt at dialog that is productive leads to name calling and bullying.

You're speculating from a pessimistic viewpoint, others are speculating from an optimistic viewpoint. You have nothing but your opinion on what's going to happen, just like everyone else. If it upsets you that members of a gun board are adamant about maintaining their gun rights, so be it.

Many of us on here now were around for the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Nothing new. Only a strong effort by the Republicans inserted the 10 year expiration into the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The only thing that will prevent the things you seem to be looking forward to are a strong enough outlash by current gun owners to get the attention of Congress.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 06:11 PM

If it upsets you that members of a gun board are adamant about maintaining their gun rights, so be it.

Upsets me? No. Bothers me? Yes. Why? Because I want to have some say so in what will happen. I don't want to wait to see what comes back and then complain about it. If being adamant about maintaining our gun rights is holding your hands over your ears and yelling "Nah Nah Nah I can't hear you" then go for it. It's your right, as you say.

Many of us on here now were around for the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Nothing new.

So was I. 3 assassinations brought about the 1968 act. Unfortunately, today, we have instant electronic media. The way news was reported even 10 years ago has changed dramatically. Cell phones, cell cameras, tweeting, internet, forums like this, everything brings these tragedies up front and center in now time. Kids now play shoot-em-up video games for 8-10-12 straight hours, 7 days a week. Kids who used to withdraw from society now play these video games and take it to the next level. If he would have shot up a post office it would have been equally tragic but when he chose 6 year old kids in a school he opened up an entirely new wound that has turned previously uncommitted voters into anti-gun people, especially with the media painting pictures that are pure propogande and lies sprinkled with the faces of the children killed. This tragedy has united parents like never before. "Save our kids, ban guns" they cry.

Now Washington is involved with a president that has been anti-gun for decades. Previously the NRA and pro-gun movement was louder. This time the anti-gun people are louder. Now, is being optimistic going to make this go away or do we wish to be in the bargaining process ahead of time? Is it being pessimistic to wish to be heard? Is it smarter to wait to see what they do before we decide what to do? Change is coming. I'd like to think we had a hand in what happens instead of allowing anti-gun people decide.

If you really believe that this will blow over then you haven't been paying attention. However, it's your right to believe what you wish. We're all speculating right now. As I write this the news is showing pictures of the kids buried today and 2 unarmed adults from the school that were also buried today. Do you think this doesn't affect people sitting on the fence on gun rights? Do you really think this is like any of the past tragedies?

Sam1911

December 20, 2012, 07:03 PM

Upsets me? No. Bothers me? Yes. Why? Because I want to have some say so in what will happen. I don't want to wait to see what comes back and then complain about it.You know, there's an amost amazing amount of hubris -- if you really stop to think about it -- in the idea that if "WE" come up with something really good as a bone to throw to the other side, somehow "WE'LL" get to influence what THEY vote into law.

Sure, we can come up with ideas like a mental health excise tax on guns (uncomfortably LINKING guns and mental health issues, IMHO) but "WE" have no way of putting that into action even if "WE" wanted it -- and what is in any way to say that "THEY" will give two good poops about our ideas? And far beyond that, that THEY are going to say, "wow, ok...if you're that serious about this mental health thing, well, I guess we'll you keep the guns."

Seriously, for the folks pushing these laws it ISN'T about solving the perceived problem with mass murderers. It's about grabbing the opportunity to hammer down gun rights while "the people's" minds are still wrought up and clamoring for "something."

But, hey, if something actually does come of all this, and some part of it looks like something you've suggested, I guess you can say they used your idea.

armoredman

December 20, 2012, 07:06 PM

I love a good leftist style compromise - how about this one;
The GCA of '68 is repealed, and they get to keep their printing presses. That is EXACTLY the style of "deal" they offer us.

jon_in_wv

December 20, 2012, 07:09 PM

http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

This is a good read. The ATF recognized the problem of mental health reporting in 2007 yet Congress hasn't taken any action to improve the situation. My understanding is the mental health reporting requirement of the law is an unfunded mandate so few states regularly report it. I believe they don't address the issue as it doesn't sufficiently ban or remove enough firearms so its inadequate. Unless they can be more draconian they don't care for it even if it will save lives. Once again the answer is to properly enforce the laws on the books not the Clintonian philosophy of ignoring the current laws so you can say they don't work and get more passed.

Also didn't the NRA support the NICS instant background checks? The media loves to claim the NRA opposes EVERYTHING. The fact is they oppose nonsense legislation that preys on ignorance and does nothing to quell crime.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 07:24 PM

...that if "WE" come up with something really good as a bone to throw to the other side, somehow "WE'LL" get to influence what THEY vote into law.

These changes (or lack of changes) will be the result of negotiations. The NRA and other pro-gun groups will represent us. They will need something to negotiate with. If not, the NRA goes in and says "we will give up nothing because our members refuse to give up what is lawfully theirs". The anti-gun people will look at them and tell them that they won't take away our right to bear arms but there will be changes. Then they will dictate what changes will occur.

Is that how we want it? Is that a negotiation? Is that what happened in '94? What the heck, only a decade. We got those rights back. Right? They did it many times before ('68, '94, NICS, etc). Why do you think they won't do it again but this time more severe and with no expiration date? To negotiate means we both compromise. I'd rather have a voice in what we compromise instead of being told what we will give up by people hellbent on taking away all our rights. If it means a 2% tax on ammo to fund a mental health bill I'd rather do that than have to turn in my AR. That's what they want, right? Or we can just refuse to negotiate and see what happens. They won't do anything, they never have, right?

Sam1911

December 20, 2012, 07:34 PM

These changes (or lack of changes) will be the result of negotiations. The NRA and other pro-gun groups will represent us. They will need something to negotiate with. If not, the NRA goes in and says "we will give up nothing because our members refuse to give up what is lawfully theirs". The anti-gun people will look at them and tell them that they won't take away our right to bear arms but there will be changes. Then they will dictate what changes will occur.

But it really comes down to who has the VOTES. That's all that's really going to matter.
And the votes won't change very much at all simply due to the proposal including a little bit more or a little bit less rights. Those who are for gun control will vote for it and those who are against won't. The NRA informs and educates legislators on what their talking points need to be as they explain why they didn't vote for a new AWB or whatever. I don't see them sitting down at a backroom table and saying, "oh, we'll go along with a mag ban if you give up the AWB," or whatever. They CAN'T come out in public support of any such thing -- the membership won't allow it.

Even a tax on guns and ammo to pay for better mental care is going to be more than they'll support. Seriously...the NRA just came out in favor of makin guns and ammo MORE EXPENSIVE??? Remember, the only real carrot or stick the NRA holds is to tell law makers that, "we represent 4 million + die-hard voters and we'll tell them you're the guy to vote for if you go our way." If they agree to back something that just can't be sugar-coated with the membership, they'll lose that carrot/stick in droves!

So, no I don't want the NRA to go in and toss them a few juicy bones for me, thanks. They already suffer enough (somewhat undeserved, maybe) distrust and anger due to what happened in 1986. I don't think they'll forget that, especially not with 8 THOUSAND new members joining EACH DAY right now. That's not the kind of indicatior that says, "hey, we'd like to settle."

If it means a 2% tax on ammo to fund a mental health bill I'd rather do that than have to turn in my AR. That's what they want, right? It will never, EVER, EVER come down to that either/or decision.

michaelbsc

December 20, 2012, 07:39 PM

http://gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

This is a good read. The ATF recognized the problem of mental health reporting in 2007 yet Congress hasn't taken any action to improve the situation. My understanding is the mental health reporting requirement of the law is an unfunded mandate so few states regularly report it.

Everybody else do something. LaPierre is not our king either. He's a mouth piece if you have a membership number.

larryh1108

December 20, 2012, 07:50 PM

But it really comes down to who has the VOTES. That's all that's really going to matter.

Exactly.

Now, how many votes did we lose because of the tragedy in CT? How many of the votes will now go the other way because they'd rather lose the 4 million NRA voters but gain the 8 million people who are now brainwashed that guns will kill our children? Let's be honest here, the NRA has spent hundreds of millions of our dollars to buy the votes in Washington. Today, those dollars don't mean as much to many of those voters due to the outcry of the public. Right now the money from the NRA doesn't buy as many votes as showing the public that you did the right thing. We had a net loss of many votes and I don't see very many switching to our side. It is the votes that count and we lost quite a few of them. We lost our advantage.

Sam1911

December 20, 2012, 07:53 PM

We don't have ANY idea that that's true. The only votes are those of the guys and gals in Congress, and they've got to think long and hard about their futures, their parties' platforms, etc. We have a strong presence in the House, and I've seen nothing yet that would indicate that it has more than shuddered, let alone dissolved.

We shall see, of course. Personally, I think appointing Biden and going back to the old 1994 talking points are very positive signs, and I think the more astute members of Congress can read that between-the-lines text as well.

MrTwigg

December 20, 2012, 08:05 PM

I hope you're all lighting up the phone lines talking to your state rep's and congress critters.

lionking

December 20, 2012, 08:14 PM

quote : "WE didn't cause this debacle, and we don't need to pay for it."

Kind of like if someone where to say " well it isn't my family who got murdered on 9/11 so it ain't got nothing to do with me"

I see it is a us against them mentality from some responses, but the them is only being considered as the hardcore anti gun people. You are not giving much thought to the average American who generally supports gun ownership but isn't entrenched on one side or the other particularly.

I thought safe use of firearms was every bodies concern if not ours even more so. Every time some lunatic does this murder spree it makes us look bad and perception does matter.

What caused this debacle to happen more and more? I don't know. It could be a combination of things I don't know there are no easy answers to explaining it or fixing it.

Personally I am not just concerned with getting past the threat of antigun legislation I'd like to actually have something done to stop these lunatics from doing mass shooting sprees again as much as possible. Unfortunately I get the feeling that for some if we defeat pending legislation coming they'll just get back to being complacent until the next shooting happens and then freak out again with "oh gawd their coming after my AR again".

I know some are going to say the solution is "arm the teachers" and while that may in part be a solution as long as it is voluntary, although many teachers are never going accept that so offering other possible solutions on top of that would be helpful.

You know as well as I do that decades ago guns were just as deadly and just as available but these incidences would be considered science fiction back then. Something has changed, and we need to be part of the solution.

Frankly even as a gunowner I don't accept that we must accept this is now the common place thing that happens in America wondering if today is the day it happens again maybe this time to someone I know personally.

jon_in_wv

December 20, 2012, 10:39 PM

I heard a guy sum it up pretty well on the radio a few days ago. He was talking about the media, mental health, poor security, and access to guns all being contributing factors to the shooting. His answer to the problem was that the easiest thing to do was to just ban assault weapons because you have to do SOMETHING and all the others are too tough to handle. The fact banning assault weapons didn't preclude a shooter from using a different weapon, or a bomb, or fire didn't seem to deter him at all. The fact is people feel powerless and want to do SOMETHING. Too bad they are all focusing on doing the wrong thing.

Sam1911

December 20, 2012, 11:09 PM

Personally I am not just concerned with getting past the threat of antigun legislation I'd like to actually have something done to stop these lunatics from doing mass shooting sprees again as much as possible. The very real problem with this is that there is very little if anything that we possibly could do to prevent this sort of thing. The warning signs and/or combinations of factors that make the one-in-100-million guy do this appear to be either vastly common, or so incredibly specific and subtle that we'll never be able to discern them. Or, even more properly, will send up so many 100s of 1000s of false positives that any real hits will be hopelessly buried. Remember, we're talking about absurdly rare occurrences. High profile, but very, very rare. As hso pointed out:

While each mass shooting this year and in recent years is tragic and catastrophic to the victims, their families and friends and their communities we can't loose sight of the fact that in a nation of three hundred million plus the criminally insane young men who have carried out each of these heinous crimes constitute a group that is infinitesimally small in this country. Even if we took all of these murders the group is smaller than the statistical fluctuation in determining the 311,000,000 population of the U.S. The 5 of them this year constitute less than
1.6e-6 % of the population. Or 0.00000016%.

...So we're going to a lot of expense and effort (and intrusion, screening, medical system issues, etc.) to find a tiny handful of fish in the ocean, and trying to screen them by picking up on a subtle combination of many factors which they probably share with MILLIONS of other folks who's flood of false-positives will screen them very effectively. And you can't even argue with the numbers, the orders of magnitude are so very great that even if we're off by 100x, the picture doesn't change.

So in a real sense, we KNOW that throwing money (or whatever) at mental health is -- while maybe a fine idea -- a total placebo when it comes to screening or predicting this kind of thing. We should be careful as hitching our star to that wagon too tightly or we'll end up like the anti-gunners clinging to magazine limits and AWBs ... "Oh...so that didn't work, now what? Better keep beating that drum 'cause otherwise we'll have to admit failure."

You know as well as I do that decades ago guns were just as deadly and just as available but these incidences would be considered science fiction back then. Something has changed, and we need to be part of the solution.Fortunately ... well that's probably not the right word, but ... this just ISN'T true at all. This latest guy isn't even the most deadly. The worst such event at a school was all the way back in the idyllic and God-fearing 1920s! (1927, actually.)

Frank Ettin

December 21, 2012, 01:35 AM

...This latest guy isn't even the most deadly. The worst such event at a school was all the way back in the idyllic and God-fearing 1920s! (1927, actually.) At the Bath School (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) in Michigan, committed with firebombs and dynamite.

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 01:45 AM

I don't think the 1:100 million number is good or fair.

The statistic that needs to be examined isn't how many mentally ill people shoot up two dozen first graders all over headline news. Its how many mentally ill people commit violent acts with guns that can be prevented.

I can personally point to two suicides that had a chance - but clearly no guarantee - of detection. One used a shotgun. So that's one which may have gone into our prevention pool statistics.

I suspect the number of violent gun incidents is more like 1:10K rather than 1:100 million.

But from the medical community's perspective instead of identifying one in ten thousand gun offenders with 9,999 false positives what you've really done is positively identified 10K at risk patients.

That's why you put the effort in the mental healthcare delivery system, not the gun retail system. The mental health community is just as happy that the patient is diverted from raping a cousin or diverted from simply wasting away in a slum house as they are if the patient is diverted from shooting up a school.

Right now the media needs the medical community to legitimize demonizing us as the aberrent ones. If the medical community begins to see us as a source of funding they'll lynch the media for demonizing us

MB

Sam1911

December 21, 2012, 05:49 AM

I suspect the number of violent gun incidents is more like 1:10K rather than 1:100 million. Well, hold on...now you're mixing up the numbers. There's no possible way 1 in 10,000 gun owners does something violent with guns -- those numbers just don't add up based on what we know about violent crime and gun ownership rates. So really you're talking about 1 in 10,000 of those who would send up some red flag for mental trouble. Still a microscopic number out of the total population of gun owners -- who would STILL have to all be screened through. About like digging the grand canyon with a teaspoon.

But from the medical community's perspective instead of identifying one in ten thousand gun offenders with 9,999 false positives what you've really done is positively identified 10K at risk patients.

That's why you put the effort in the mental healthcare delivery system, not the gun retail system. The mental health community is just as happy that the patient is diverted from raping a cousin or diverted from simply wasting away in a slum house as they are if the patient is diverted from shooting up a school.Well, now we see that it really ISN'T about preventing "gun violence" at all, but rather it is good because it will help fund treatment for all of the rest of society's ills.

And that's both unfair -- guns have nothing to do with either of your examples, so you're diverting, i.e.: stealing, money from one task to apply to other tasks at a rate of 10,000:1, by your own admission -- and again LINKING guns and mental illness.

There's a principle in contract law that says if you pay for something you are making a firm agreement that you SHOULD BE paying for it because you have a responsibility for, or to, it. Making a $1,000 rifle cost $1,100 (or what? $2,000? Or even $1,001...just a dollar will do it) so we can fund mental health issues is just like a state taxing liquor to pay for drunk driving enforcement, or taxing cigarettes to pay for health care. You're admitting these things are linked and that these people who want to do these things are responsible -- as a group -- for some of society's ills. I don't like making that link between guns and mental illness -- at all!

jon_in_wv

December 21, 2012, 08:42 AM

Making weapons and ammo more expensive isn't about stopping crime its about reducing the number of firearms available to the unwashed masses, especially minorities, who are not to be trusted with firearms. Only the wealthy, privileged, and police should have firearms. Politicians see that group as the modern day Samurai what will defend the poor from their ivory palaces because they are too ignorant and dangerous to defend themselves. If you spent your life surrounded by guards and people telling you how smart you are, making decisions for the public, while watching crime and chaos on the news, why would you believe otherwise? The handgun is like the sword. It is the tool of the Samurai and can only be used by a trained professional. The masses are only dangerous to themselves and others with them.

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 10:48 AM

No, one in 10k mental patients does something.

And it is just an educated guess. But prisons are full of mentally ill people.

But the accusation that I have no data is correct. And I didn't say I did.

Sam1911

December 21, 2012, 10:55 AM

But prisons are full of mentally ill people.Who would, therefore, not be those under screening as potential gun buyers anyway.

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 11:19 AM

...Making a $1,000 rifle cost $1,100 (or what? $2,000? Or even $1,001...just a dollar will do it) so we can fund mental health issues is just like a state taxing liquor to pay for drunk driving enforcement, or taxing cigarettes to pay for health care. You're admitting these things are linked and that these people who want to do these things are responsible -- as a group -- for some of society's ills. I don't like making that link between guns and mental illness -- at all!

Don't think I haven't worried about this exact linkage myself. One of my posts in another thread throws out the challenge to find another funding mechanism to avoid this.

And your logic is irrefutable. So I wont even try. Nor will I say I even disagree.

But to be actively engaged the effort has to get funded. I'm not married to "my" proposal. I'm hell bent to get something not stupid out there. Our heads in the sand is stupid. And thinking the problem will magically get fixed is head in the sand thinking.

So the causal link is.

A) This is a mental healthcare problem.

B) The gun owners of America need the healthcare system to work properly because we depend on it as part of our safety net. WE CARE A LOT ABOUT THIS FAILURE.

C) Here is how we're actively engaged to fix this broken system that affects us. 1,2,3,4,5

Yes, I'm playing the victim card. We, the responsible gun owners of America are the victims of the inadequate mental healthcare delivery just as much as the dead children.

But some strategy to fund fixing the system beyond praying for pixie dust has to show up. Tax milk? Tax the rich? What?

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 12:04 PM

And here is text I received related to the petition. The assumption being that the petition was about restricting guns no doubt.

Pardon the horrid formatting. I'm copying and pasting from a cell phone. But note the crafty rhetorical skill to link weapons of war to reasonable gun ownership. The objective is a ban.

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 12:07 PM

Can't tell from my cell if I screwed up the post.

A Message from President Obama about Your Petition on Reducing Gun Violence " By Bruce Reed, Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden"

In the days since the tragedy in Newtown, Americans from all over the country have called for action to deter mass shootings and reduce gun violence. Hundreds of thousands of you have signed petitions on We the People [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/message-president-obama-about-your-petition-reducing-gun-violence?utm_source= wethepeople&utm_medium= response&utm_campaign=safety ].

I'm writing you today to thank you for speaking up, to update you on an important development, and to encourage you to continue engaging with the White House on this critical issue.

First, you should know that President Obama is paying close to attention to the public response to this tragedy. In fact, he sat down to record a message specifically for those of you who have joined the conversation using We the People. Watch it now:

On Wednesday [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/19/president-obama-words-need-lead-action-gun-violence?utm_source= wethepeople&utm_medium= response&utm_campaign=safety ], the President outlined a series of first steps we can take to begin the work of ending this cycle of violence. This is what he said: ""We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts."

"But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence."" Vice President Biden has been asked to work with members of the Administration, Congress, and the general public to come up with a set of concrete policy proposals by next month -- proposals the President intends to push swiftly. The President asked the Vice President to lead this effort in part because he wrote and passed the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in America. That bill included the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I'm going to do everything I can to ensure we run a process that includes perspectives from all sides of the issue, which is why I wanted to respond to your petition myself. Two decades ago, as domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, I first worked with Joe Biden as he fought to enact the Crime Bill, the assault weapons ban, and the Brady Bill. I will never forget what a key role the voices of concerned citizens like you played in that vital process.

The President called on Congress to pass important legislation "banning the sale of military-style assault weapons," "banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips," and "requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 12:23 PM

Who would, therefore, not be those under screening as potential gun buyers anyway.

No, but effective mental healthcare delivery in the general population. can reduce the number of future incarcerations for gun crimes. Remember that most gun crime is stuff like 7/11 robbery with a handgun, but the administration's big prize target is AWB.

Who the devil holds up a 7/11 with an AKM?

Bubbles

December 21, 2012, 12:24 PM

1st law change after Sandy Hook tragedy (http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/1st-law-change-after-sandy-hook-tragedy#.UNQLJ3d36YQ)
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) -- The first change in state law in direct response to Sandy Hook occurred during Wednesday night's special session.

And Thursday lawmakers announced a roster of eight proposed changes in the state's gun laws...

The proposal would immediately expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two, like the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon.

...this proposal would prohibit the sale and possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10.

The proposal would also call for a 50 percent sales tax on all ammunition, permits would be required to purchase ammunition, and the online purchase of ammunition would be prohibited.

toivo

December 21, 2012, 01:01 PM

The proposal would immediately expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two, like the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon.

...this proposal would prohibit the sale and possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10.

Hmm... If the Connecticut AWB is similar to the one in NY, a detachable magazine is one of the features. By that definition, you can say goodbye to virtually every semi-auto rifle. Magazine capacity limits then become a moot point, don't they? Except for handguns, I guess.

michaelbsc

December 21, 2012, 01:29 PM

Hmm... If the Connecticut AWB is similar to the one in NY, a detachable magazine is one of the features. By that definition, you can say goodbye to virtually every semi-auto rifle. Magazine capacity limits then become a moot point, don't they? Except for handguns, I guess.

Guess the prices on SKS will go up. Good thing you can't import any more.

beeb173

December 21, 2012, 01:48 PM

i don't believe a tax on guns creates a "link between guns and mental illness". i think it is the cost of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. 1% should do it.

Sam1911

December 21, 2012, 02:48 PM

i don't believe a tax on guns creates a "link between guns and mental illness".You may not believe that it does, but that really doesn't change the perception of the matter, based on both human nature and the nature of fiscal dealings.

It is incredibly hard (and many will say specious) to say, "We gun owners agree that every time we buy a gun or ammo we should be paying for mental health care," without acknolwleging a tangible link between the two.

Zoogster

December 21, 2012, 03:17 PM

Bubbles: The proposal would also call for a 50 percent sales tax on all ammunition, permits would be required to purchase ammunition, and the online purchase of ammunition would be prohibited.

No impact on someone that would commit mass murder and does not need to repay any debt or credit they used to buy it.
Major impact on those trying to legally use thier firearms and have to pay more to go to the range.
Obviously just meant to hurt gun owners.

Bubbles: expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two
A feature is detachable magazines. That means many semi autos.
Hunter's Browning BAR, mini-14s, M1A etc
All the typical firearms not covered previously.

Lets get some images off the net of the BAR because it looks so traditional:

I don't believe the tax should pay for mental health care but rather a system used by gun dealers to better keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

That system would have to be refined by law enforcement and medical professionals.

stageman

December 21, 2012, 04:18 PM

And the feds just raided the store where the shooter's mom bought the guns...
Connecticut Shop Where Nancy Lanza Bought 1 Of Her Guns Raided By Feds
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/connecticut-shop-where-nancy-lanza-bought-1-of-her-guns-raided-by-feds/

larryh1108

December 21, 2012, 04:42 PM

They raided it yesterday. The news "stated" it was a coincidence that it was the same place she bought her rifle. All of the FFLs around here were looked into right after the murders to see if she or her son bought any ammo there or used the range for practice or bought anything else. Maybe they saw some sloppy bookkeeping?

mberoose

December 21, 2012, 04:44 PM

Riverview had atrocious inventory control. Many guns just randomly disappeared. Its been a problem since 2007.

pmoney

December 21, 2012, 05:00 PM

All I can say is that if the government is going to try and control our gun ownership, that hopefully they can control it a little better than they did with operation "Fast and Furious".

avs11054

December 21, 2012, 06:19 PM

Well, we can post on here all day long about this issue, but we need to make sure that we are e-mail/calling/writing our representatives to let them know our feelings. I e-mailed John McCain and Raul Grijalva (not that I think there is any way that he would support anything less than a total ban on guns) last night. I also e-mailed Boehner and McConnell. Even though they do not represent me, they are the leaders of the republican party, and hopefully they can have some pull with getting the rest of the party members to vote against any type of gun control legislation.

I encourage everybody else to start contacting your representatives ASAP to let them know your opinions on this matter.

Exactly... he's choosing his words very carefully because he knows such generic terminology can cover a very broad spectrum of firearms. Bureaucrats are a crafty lot.

mister_murphy

December 21, 2012, 11:30 PM

Frankly. I see this debate as a fight to the end. Its about the totality of firearm rights. imcluding all the various types of firearms. If we loose semi-autos such as AR's and the like, thats one spoke broke out of the wheel, and then another, an so on.

Im tired of hearing hunters say how this doesnt apply to them. Well, it does, in more ways then one... Too man hunters feel they are way to safe, but hunting is protected by the second amendment.

Zoogster

December 22, 2012, 12:54 AM

'Military style' political maneuvering.

Most firearms were military style, going back hundreds of years. The most popular civilian firearms have typically been military firearms since the industrial revolution.
Whether they were a single action revolvers, like the Navy and Army so named after the service, or lever action carbines and rifles.
The .45-70 was a military cartridge fired in military weapons, and was named the "Government" for a reason.

Many of the most popular bolt actions in the last half century have been surplus rifles of nations that upgraded during and after WW2.

The K98 Masuer becoming one of the world's most prolific hunting rifles.

Garands became desirable, m1 carbines were popular, and then the population caught up to wanting the AR-15s by the 90s.

That is why 'military style' is such a slick use of words, it is known it will be recieved as meaning one thing by many, but can actually mean as much as what they want it to mean without having to actually define it.
While at the same time trying to appeal to the citizens 'don't need the type of guns used in war' mentality.
It is slick politican speak.

Nevermind that the 2nd actually protects those arms suitable for military use the most as that was the entire intent.

otasan56

December 22, 2012, 12:59 PM

You got that right. The anti-gunners want ALL guns to be banned, but they know that they cannot get their goal all at once. First, they start with "assault weapons." Next will be hunting rifles, and so on until all are banned. Well, thank God we have a Heller-supported Second Amendment.

Trent

December 22, 2012, 07:42 PM

So.. if he's wanting to ban military style rifles, what about ACTUAL military rifles?

I mean if he's after "Military-Style" rifles, I should be worried right? He didn't specify a TIME frame they came from.

{read this post as dripping with sarcasm, please.}

mister_murphy

December 22, 2012, 09:25 PM

If he is after military style rifles, no one is safe. After all, the military used single shot falling block, bolt action, internal mag semi auto, and detachable mag fed semi and full auto. Then there is none safe. Want to argue sniper rifles too? They want them all.

USgunguy

December 23, 2012, 01:15 AM

I believe we know theirs. Let's discuss ours. As bad as the CT shooting was it is still a rare event compared to the typical and frequent gun crimes. I don't think anyone keeps a gun at home for protection in case a crazed lunatic decides to drop in. Here's my point, if everyone is genuinely concerned with minimizing gun deaths, as they are taking them away from law abiding citizens, let's really crack down on anyone who uses a gun of any type while committing a crime. I vote for a 30 year minimum sentence to be served in full. Can we wrap this in with the inevitable assault weapons ban or does this destroy your voting pool Mr President?

Trent

December 23, 2012, 10:51 AM

I don't think anyone keeps a gun at home for protection in case a crazed lunatic decides to drop in.

Speak for yourself, dude.

Within reach of where I'm sitting right now I have three assault rifles, two handguns.

Why?

Just over a month ago one of my neighbors was robbed at gunpoint by FIVE armed intruders.

FIVE.

They weren't caught.

DammitBoy

December 23, 2012, 11:50 AM

I don't think anyone keeps a gun at home for protection in case a crazed lunatic decides to drop in.

Anyone trying to break into my house while I'm home is a crazed lunatic for making the attempt.

armoredman

December 23, 2012, 01:42 PM

USgunguy, the majority of the fine folks on this forum tend to keep firearms QUITE handy, as guns in a safe are no threat to anyone, including home invaders - ever tried to spin a combination while someone is hammering in your front door? Me either. :)

But prisons are full of mentally ill people.
let's put this in perspective with some actual numbers, shall we? Arizona prison population according to the numbers from November 2012,
Total population, 40,064.
Inmates requiring ongoing mental health services, 9,487, almost 24%, or it could be saying almost 1 out of every 4. This includes those taking Welbutrin for depression similar to people on the street, to those criminally insane in lock down mental health wards such as Baker Ward and Browning Mental Health Watch Pods. I've seen and dealt with both sides of that coin.
Yes, we need better mental health care - we're NOT qualified to do it, and having them dumped on us doesn't help them, just society as we keep them away from your families, but long term? 96% of all inmates are eventually released...

Trick

December 23, 2012, 06:39 PM

Well said NCJT,
it is about time that someone has a good plan with some reason to it. so what if we have to do the foot work, someone with reasonable amount of intelligence must lead the charge my vote is for us not them...

velojym

December 23, 2012, 06:43 PM

Is it my imagination, or are there an unusual number of new low-post-count folks coming here to stir stuff up and attempt to cast doubt on folks. Lame attempts, I'll admit, but one other guy immediately jumped in and started talking about which compromises "we" should be willing to accept in order to preserve some of what rights we have left.

timothymadison

December 23, 2012, 09:08 PM

well folks try this on. Obama's goals are not to just be president of U.S.A. There are a few things he could do on his way to being head of U.N. which would be head of the world. Gun control is one of them. And another is bring us down economically to some of the U.N freeloaders countries. We would be more manageable then . These things just to mention a few could be done alot easier as head of the U.S than head of the world. Have I lost my marbles or does that make sense?

JohnBT

December 23, 2012, 09:28 PM

Nope, it didn't fit.

Sam1911

December 23, 2012, 09:46 PM

...head of U.N. which would be head of the worldUhhh....head of the UN is head of the world??? I don't know whether to laugh, or cry...and then laugh!

I thought that was where we sent retired heads of failed states to wile away their impotent last years. Head of the world? Oh, yeah that's rich!

Trick

December 24, 2012, 02:30 PM

so what is being said here? if you have a low post counts you have no viable opinion and can not comment on a ongoing discussion concerning our rights as free Americans ? or is there some hidden agenda that I can not see on this site ????

Sam1911

December 24, 2012, 02:44 PM

so what is being said here? if you have a low post counts you have no viable opinion and can not comment on a ongoing discussion concerning our rights as free Americans ? or is there some hidden agenda that I can not see on this site ????

Say...wut? :confused:

If you or anyone else has an opinion, you or they may freely express it. If it doesn't really hold up to a deeper exploration of fact or reason, someone else is welcomed to politely point out where the flaws in that opinion are, so that all of us can develop a deeper, better understanding of the issues.

Having "an opinion" is fine. Having an informed opinion is better. Having an informed opinion that you can support with examples and logic so that others may come to view things more clearly is better still!

Don't post an opinion here (or anywhere) if you are so invested in it that you cannot accept that it may be incorrect. Don't post your opinion if it is so treasured that you cannot see it battered around a little to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Don't post your opinion if you will become uncomfortable if others do not share it. And don't post it if you aren't willing to present your reasons for believing it -- and your reasons for believing the things you present as supporting evidence, etc.

This isn't the back wall of a 7-11 where we ask folks to scrawl whatever comes to mind. This is a dedicated, rather intense discussion forum where you need to bring your "A" game. And your "big boy pants" (i.e.: a thick skin). :)

larryh1108

December 24, 2012, 03:11 PM

Sam, I believe he was responding to a comment about people with low post counts coming here to troll or stir up trouble. Trick hasn't done either. There are some low post people here who have stirred the pot but the unusual thing is that they have been members for more than a week, some for years. That being said, every opinion here has the merit it earns thru the measures you mentioned in your post. Just because we have an opinion doesn't make it the right one or the only one. These boards exist because opinions differ and we all see things thru different eyes and lights. What fun would it be if every post, after an original post, was "+1".

Trick

December 24, 2012, 04:11 PM

thank you for the clarification and the comment was not meant to be derogatory just for my personal information . and it was not meant to offend anyone .. as for being invested in a opinion it is mine and mine alone whether you agree or disagree it makes no difference to me and certainly not worth loosing sleep over ..
Trick....

justice06rr

December 25, 2012, 01:23 AM

Noobs!

Lol j/k.

but I'm seriously tired of all this gun buying hysteria. I wish it would stop so I can finally buy my normal supply of ammo again :D

silvermane_1

December 25, 2012, 06:22 AM

^ ditto, to bad don't really see that happening though.

ps: also the wacko in Webster, NY just gave the antis some fuel for the AWB ect.

ROCK6

December 25, 2012, 08:47 AM

You got that right. The anti-gunners want ALL guns to be banned, but they know that they cannot get their goal all at once. First, they start with "assault weapons." Next will be hunting rifles, and so on until all are banned.

I disagree. I don't think it's about guns at all...it's about control...period. Sure the low-level puppets, pundits and anti-gun voices will all demagogue guns, but it's more about control of the law-abiding citizens. Given the "fast and furious" blunder and that criminals will always get access to firearms just shows their ignorance. They can't control criminals; they just don't listen or obey laws and regulations. But for the law-abiding citizen, they can threaten compliance and control and get it..."we" have too much to lose. It's not "gun-control" that is the goal...it's "liberty control"; what we really need is "government control" as history has shown the most destruction and death of citizens has been at the hands of governments. The extreme liberal’s dream of utopia is the absolute control of a compliant and pacified citizen population where an elite few decide the rules yet are not bound by the same. Individual ownership of guns is a threat to their utopian society.

ROCK6

If you enjoyed reading about "Well, Obama just laid it out" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!